Thursday
Oct032013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill GWPF TV
Oct 3, 2013 Climate: WG2 GWPF GWPF has launched couple of videos on extreme weather events. A long version and a short version are embedded below. Benny Peiser was wondering if BH readers would like to comment and/or make suggestions for improvement.
Enjoy.
Reader Comments (81)
Pretty good, but too long. Who is the target audience? For the internet generation it would need to be shorter and punchier. The message of video 1 could be got across in 5 minutes. My attention wandered off about half way through during one of the Pielke sections.
The second (5 min) one is much better.
I smiled at the 'snow is a thing of the past' and 'arctic ice-free by 2013' headlines, but most people would miss those unless you explicitly draw attention to them.
or an idiotometer rising and falling as Francis and Obama utter their drivel?
Generally very good. However, perhaps a mention of the early 19th century arctic melt (reported to the Royal Society). Also, on global temperatures:a mention of the MWP might be considered.
Then a copy should be sent to every MP, andthe Lords.
GWPF has produced a long version of the interview with Jennifer Francis (26 minutes) which I have watched . A sad comment on my life, I know.
What impressed me was David Whitehouse's softly-softly approach. Jennifer Francis's more egregious comments, some of which appear as clips in the videos above, were elicited by simply allowing her to talk her way through her explanations and not offering any stern challenge at the outset or indeed as she proceeded on her way.
The CAGW crowd has seized on hyperbole and hysteria as a means to sway the general public in its direction. This has not worked. None of this material from GWPF will give you the impetus for a bare knuckle attack on the CAGW position. But you don't need to do that. Just keep asking, politely and quietly, " You say x, but could you point me to the evidence for x."
I know this is hardly a rallying cry but ,in the long run, this sort of work by David Whitehouse will provide the ammunition to defeat the CAGW position.
Great effort gents, looked very professional to me and really enjoyed them both. I'm not qualified to comment on the most efficient way of getting the message across but I'll have a go anyway!
1. Could the short video be punchier with more sound bites for the attention span deficit generation? Explain predicting the future is difficult and mock their previous predictions. David Viner's "they aren't going to know what snow is" and the Met Office's "barbeque summers" when it peed it down are both well known in the UK at least and should be prominent. Maybe Ehrlich's nonsense or Hansen's "Manhattan under water" if you could fit it in. Why should we take these failures seriously now?
2. The longer video would be great as part of an update to the GGWSwindle, otherwise not sure who will watch it apart from the likes of us. It shows what abject failures the BBC are after 28gate in tackling this important issue head on. Would Ch4 take the project on? You could get RichardB to take part for balance. Yeah BenP and RichardB would make a great program....Do It. Get your hands on a Met Office budget Richard and contact Ben!
3. I understood it all but flitting between the points you were critiquing and the presented facts so quickly it was not always clear which was which! The kiddy advert was like this...are you saying this is true...(20 seconds)...or are you going to present a graph that refutes it. Tricky I guess in the allotted time.
4. Cut out the Inhofe stuff. Most never heard of him and if they have will polarise the debate. Showing BarryO wrong was done really well, stick to that.
5. Agree with the comment to show famous historic extreme weather events that were worse than now. Get some perspective on the alarmism.
But well done for doing this. Bravo.
1. I suggest to leave out the annoying rotating GWPF shadow rings in the blue background. The logo GWPF TV will do.
2. Even if the videos are simply taped Skype sessions, at least at the GWPF side one should pay attention that the interviewer is properly lightened, and that not ceiling lights or curtains in the background are a distraction.
3. There should be a short text aside the mini-screenshot (=link) to the video
David Petch
You're not the only sad one, I watched her Jennifer Francis too!
The moment when she was really thrown was when David pointed out that SREX provided no evidence of increasing extreme weather.
After spluttering for a few seconds, she said she was not familiar with the detail of SREX, but that some work she was in the middle of was going to disprove it all.
First well done Benny!
Second ... first impressions count and the image that is shown doesn't exactly entice me to click on it.
David Whitehouse shows himself to be (in this instance) more a late era David Frost than a Jeremy Paxman, and is all the more effective for it. He clearly decided that nothing would be gained by aggressive questioning and was polite and well-informed throughout. A masterclass that Harrabin, Shukman and the rest could learn from, especially when talking to 'sceptics.'
For me the full interviews are more interesting than the produced report. You can watch as Whitehouse teases out the argument yet, unaware by the interviewer, is always in control of the direction of the interview.
It is a valuable addition to the AGW debate this close questioning of scientists. Obviously Harrabin and Shukman and the rest can't do it (or they would have done sometime in the last decade or more), and is a great tool to get at the real points. It needs a David Whitehouse and his skills to do this. Far more effective than any number of articles in the Guardian, or features on the BBC and light years ahead of the bellowing of Bob Ward.
David Petch (Oct 4, 2013 at 12:53 PM):
Following your lead, I, too, wasted a large part of my life watching JF. It was amazing how she could declare, without a twitch of her face, that “…the last decade is the warmest ever recorded, since we’ve been taking measurements…” [16:12] Well, yes… we all acknowledge that temperatures have (thankfully) risen since the little ice age (when, oddly enough, humans began measuring air temperatures), so that we are now experiencing the “warmest ever recorded” years is truly astounding.
and, “…several seasons in a row with above average hurricane activity … there is a lot of ingredients that you need to have an active hurricane season …” [16:45] Not sure what the average number of Atlantic hurricanes is, but I would expect it to be about 10-12; so far this year, there has been 1. Now, I am not a mathematician or an accountant, but I do not think that even the most imaginative of them can get 1 to be above 10.
Let these people talk, as, in doing so, they are digging themselves ever deeper into their holes, and the sooner people will realise that they are trying to draw us all into those holes. Dr. David Whitehouse played her along very nicely, helpfully passing her new shovels, and taking away the dirt as she dug.
These videos are terrible.
After watching the first 2 minutes of each (and then you leave because you are bored) they just confirm the view that extreme weather is caused by global warming.
Dr Francis ( the apocalyptic warmist) is front lit with a clear and open face.
Dr Roger Pielke (the sensible one) is mid-lit. Some light behind, some infront.
Dr David Whitehouse (the sceptic) is back lit. He looks as if he is using hs web cam to groom your pre-teen daughter.
Absolutely dreadful films that start by proving extreme weather is true and then (hoping you will stay for the rebuttal and have not already left) get their points in too late, long after the undecided have left from boredom.
Excellent job. It was fine.
It would be good to do some livestreaming events on Youtube. And a weekly Climate Wars News TV.
Actually the most relevant question asked so far has been "who is this aimed at?", this should be followed by "who is going to show it?". The main TV channels are unlikely to show it and few "don't knows" will visit the GWPF site. If this is aimed at uninformed public, it will not grab their attention sufficiently to get them to watch it all. Whoever it is aimed at how will it get to them?
@Dung
The video link can be emailed to MPs and has already been posted on facebook and twitter with 508 views so far.
I agree with Fay, MPs are one of the key audiences. This should be aimed at the sort of person who used to watch Horizon before the BBC decided they wanted to appeal to the segment of society that doesn't watch documentaries. I agree a different type of video would be better for that type of person.
I had time to show the videos to our Friday night get together of engineers and technicians, most of whom couldn't give a damn about global warming.
The first comments were, what is it about and are they preaching to the converted, with a secondary comment on that of, who are the converted.
The general feeling was that both of them lacked direction with no defining aim. Are they for or against extreme weather events because they didn't make that point clear. Where they might have done so all they did was wave the camera past some graphs not giving time to actually see what they were about.
The 'experts' talking should have been as a voice over pictures and diagrams showing what they were talking about and if they had to be seen then the lighting crew should have done their work much better.
Overall the general opinion of the group was - a good first try, needs work and could be much better and might eventually end up as something useful to the debate.
My own opinion is very like that of Dung (Oct 3, 2013 at 10:04 PM), they only work IF you have been following the debate. They are not in a state that will convince anyone that has not already made up their mind and as such are useless to send to such people as politicians and other decision makers. Sorry.
@ Ivan
I expect the GWPF have nowhere near the BBC's budget to produce glossy docs with loads of whizz-bang library footage thrown in. Nor would it be interested in using such material to emotionally manipulate the viewer in support of its arguments. Given the resources and intention, I think the results are excellent.
"... [the films] are not in a state that will convince anyone that has not already made up their mind and as such are useless to send to such people as politicians and other decision makers."
Surely, the purpose of these films is to get people to unmake up their minds... that being not only the true position of scepticism, but also the precondition for any capacity to be curious about the world around us.
@ Peter S
Non of the people with me that watched the films had a real down on the production except for lighting of those people presenting words. Yes, I will admit that I spent quite a few years at the equipment end of the film ant TV industry so in the technical aspect I think I know what I'm talking about.
The main problem was with how the information was presented hence the statement you quoted. If the information presented will not convince anyone that has not made up their mind how is it going to help people change their ideas?
As I said the production is fine, apart from the lighting, where it is let down is the scripting which appears to be bending over backwards to be even handed and thus not delivering the intended message clearly. At the moment it appears to be preaching to the choir.
I do think a lot of people here are not looking at these videos in the right way. They have watched a video that tells them they are right, they like some of the subtleties used and the lack of shouting and arm waving, they like it.
The introduction given by the Bish did not mention who these videos were aimed at, what are we supposed to be looking at then? Was that omission by Benny Peiser or the Bish? Was it deliberate or unintentional?
We openly talk about belief in CAGW as being like a religion, so is this video powerful enough to shake religious beliefs?
Only 5 MPs did not support the Climate Change Act and that to me says that many of them are signed up believers even if they do not understand all the facts.
One of my entries in the Bishop Hill Hall of Fame (in Discussion area) was by Mike Jackson (who said it was made by some General in WW2):
That is what our opponents did, they grabbed the world by the balls and they got the world's attention! They did it with alarming claims that the world was going to fry and so were we and it was all our fault. They lied and lied and lied again to get us where we are today but so far the strategy appears to be bang on.
WE do not need to lie in order to tell a staggering and alarming story of deception, corruption (both of people and the science) and greed. Why are we not doing that in a video?
But, Ivan - the film is not aimed at people who have not made up their mind, it is aimed at people who have. Being in praise of having an unmade up mind (as the film is), it doesn't seek to change the ideas of those who occupy this position, but to affirm it as a good place to be. It achieves this both by example and by demonstrating the foolishness of those who make up their mind regardless of the evidence.
It sounds to me like you're frustrated the film resists making up people's minds to agree with yours.
I agree with Dolphinhead
GWPF should commission Durkin to do a follow-up on the Great Global Warming Swindle
Peter, the problem is that the videos are so even handed that any message about looking round and thinking is lost. There is nothing in them that makes anyone on either side say 'prove it'. Until such time as they do they appear to be nothing more than an ego stroking exercise.
I am frustrated with the videos for one reason - they do NOT make anyone stop and think and wonder. In that they have failed.
BTW, my stance on global warming, or lack thereof, is, prove it!
Agree with many of the comments about the undefined target audience and "who's going to show this?"
From this viewer's perspective the single most powerful message is Pielke's commentary about Obama being wrong and the failure of scientists and the press to challenge him on the facts.
Leading off with the Obama's listing of catastrophic events immediately followed by Pielke's "Obama was simply wrong" might be a good opener, readily understood by all audiences.
This approach might get some air time at Fox, and like-minded media outlets. Yes, preaching to the choir but better than t getting no showing at all.
'Agree with many of the comments about the undefined target audience and "who's going to show this?"'
The beauty of Youtube is that anybody can embed videos on their own blogs, websites, etc.
(Right-click in the video, select 'copy embed HTML', and paste the html code into a web page/blog post).
Let's start a Twitter storm
Here is the link to all MPs on twitter send the You Tube video link.
https://twitter.com/tweetminster/ukmps
@Ivan. "I am frustrated with the videos for one reason - they do NOT make anyone stop and think and wonder. In that they have failed."
Well yes, the videos have clearly not made you stop and think and wonder - so, in that respect, you might view them as having failed.
The second biggest reason why these videos pack no punch is the choice of subject. there is a world of difference between being warned that the weather is going to turn very nasty and being told we are all going to fry. Being confronted by a gunman in a dark alley and taking issue with his dress sense comes to mind.
I think its a little too balanced ..... this is an area where even the IPCC has TWICE issued reports saying that, basically, there isn't any evidence for this. And yet Obama stands up and spouts utter garbage. We need to take the gloves off and call him out more forcefully. Don't just say he is 'incorrect' - say he is utterly wrong and speaking utter nonsense - as even the IPCC agrees.
I'd like to see more calm refutation of :-
1. 95%, and
2. Warmest decade in last x years,
showing what ridiculous comments these are.
I think the videos should draw a clearer distinction between what SCIENCE tells us about extreme weather and what the MEDIA has been telling us. When did the terms "Extreme Weather" and "Climate Disruption" first start being used. My guess is that these terms appeared after four devastating hurricanes (including Katrina) struck the US in 2005. At that point, there was a legitimate discussion about whether global warming had pushed us into a new era when damaging hurricanes would be MUCH more frequent.
I think the best way to illustrate this phenomena would be with a series of graphs about hurricanes: One could start with a graph of hurricanes which struck the US and start with perhaps the two decade ending in 2005. Then have the picture show more and more of the earlier record (and possibly explain that this record does depend upon satellites). Then show a graph of all Atlantic hurricanes and after that a graph of all global hurricanes and show that a there no trend in these records. It would be perfect if the hurricanes striking the US could be seen in a bar graph in a different color as part of the bar, demonstrating that they are a small portion of a much larger phenomena and that the projected increase in hurricanes is global, not localized to the US. Explain that scientists looked at the big picture and used careful statistical analysis to answer the legitimate questions raised by 2005. Say that the conclusion of that analysis (after much scientific debate) was that we hadn't entered a new era of damaging hurricanes, despite some projections that this could occur in the distant future. 2005 was a chance event. Then go back to the record of US landfalling hurricanes and show the years after 2005 and ask the question: What happened after 2005? Did 2005 turn out to be a rare event or the beginning of a new trend? (Be honest and explain that the recent lack of hurricanes striking the US is currently a chance event and not the beginning of a decrease in hurricanes. Cite the global record and focus on the role chance plays in attracting public attention.
Then focus on 2012 and Hurricane (Superstorm) Sandy, which may or may not even be found in the official record. Explain that the Media and many politicians have forgotten what scientists told them after Katrina. Show the cover of Businessweek: "It's Global Warming, Stupid". If you have time, go through the same analysis with landfalling hurricanes striking the US in the Mid-Atlantic and New England. Show the recent period with Irene and Sandy, the longer record. the Atlantic record and the global record. The analysis hasn't changed. Cross out "Global Warming" on the cover of Businessweek and replace it with "It's Bad Luck, Stupid". Explain that sea level rise since AGW began in 1950 did contribute about 5 inches to the storm surge associated with Sandy, but that tides contributed several feet.
Then ask WHY has the mainstream media ignored and some politician ignored what scientists have told them about hurricanes? 1) In many cases, these politicians support legislation restricting GHG emissions and the media have published editorials supporting such legislation. This is politicization of science. The GWPF - which made this video - was founded to counter the misuse of science by politics. 2) Some scientists tell us that extreme events like Katrina and Sandy are "CONSISTENT" with EXPECTATIONS of an increasing number of extreme events in the future. However, we have just shown that no trend toward increasing numbers of hurricanes has been OBSERVED. Do these scientists - for political reasons - want you to believe that their future EXPECTATIONS are already part of today's REALITY? 3) Human beings are always searching for ways to make the world a better place; they have difficulty accepting that tragedies like Katrina and Sandy are merely bad luck. It is human nature to desperately grasp at any semi-plausible explanation and try to eliminate future danger. [Our society has learned how to forecast events like Katrina and Sandy far enough ahead of time to that people can escape the danger area. Many modern buildings are strong enough to withstand hurricane force winds and many of homes devastated by storm surges are being rebuilt at a safer height above sea level. But the energy released by a hurricane is equal to an atomic bomb going off every 20 minutes or 20% of the energy being currently being consumed by humans at any time. Eliminating this danger is currently beyond our capabilities.]
Professor Pielke was unclear about the extreme weather that the IPCC says is occurring right now:
What is extreme precipitation and how is it related to flooding? What fraction of flooding is caused by what the IPCC calls "extreme precipitation"? Was the recent flood in Boulder, CO enhanced or made more likely by the increase in extreme precipitation? If so, how much? Does extreme precipitation include hurricanes? I'm fairly sure that extreme precipitation doesn't unusually long periods rainy weather that produce major floods like those in Pakistan in 2012 or on the MIssissippi in 2011. Professor Pielke says extreme precipitation has an impact on "stream flow", but doesn't differentiate it from other types of flooding.
When he acknowledged that there has been an increase in high temperatures during heat waves, isn't it appropriate to say this has been accompanied by a decrease in extreme cold? (I don't know what data says.) Some researchers believe that extreme cold causes more harm that extreme warmth. Extreme cold and excessive rain may be just as bad for agriculture as excessive heat and drought. (I don't know what the data says about the relative harm caused by each problem.) However, heat and drought get more attention because they mostly occur in the summer when the public is also hot! Farmers plant different crops in different climates and could adapt to climate change. They can't adapt to unusual WEATHER - which we can't predict far enough ahead. Isn't the additional extreme warmth a problem that farmers always been dealing with?