Burn Up

Stephen Garrett, a spokesman for Kudos Film and Television who made Burn Up, was quoted in the BBC press release for the show describing it as "a potent cocktail of fiction and fact that we hope will enlighten as much as it will entertain". This programme can't be assessed just as harmless fiction. It is political propaganda and should be understood as such.


Methane

I'm no scientist but I know enough to be pretty confident this film isn't going to enlighten anyone. It dresses up the speculative fringe of climate science as the absolute truth. "Runaway climate change is upon us", apparently, if everyone doesn't sign up to 'Kyoto 2'. The only character in the film who is a scientist, an academic from Oxford, tells us that is because methane deposits are going to be released unless we meet a 5 to 10 year deadline for curbs in emissions.

Let's see what the Met Office's Hadley Centre, definitely part of the alarmist scientific 'consensus' says about possible releases of methane:

"Substantial quantities of methane are emitted naturally from wetlands, and this emission is expected to change as wetlands change. Changing rainfall patterns will cause some wetland areas to increase in extent, others to decrease, and increases in temperature will act to increase emissions from wetlands. One version of the Hadley Centre climate model includes a description of wetland methane, and this predicts an increase in natural wetland emissions by the end of the century equivalent to the amount of man-made emissions projected for that time, thus leading to a more rapid rise in methane concentrations, and hence warming.

On the other hand, the chemical reactions in the atmosphere which destroy methane are expected to become more efficient in future, largely as a result of increased water vapour. This will act as a negative feedback on methane amounts.

Methane is also stored in permafrost, and it is likely that some of this will be released as surface warming extends into the permafrost and begins to melt it.

Finally, huge amounts of methane are locked up in methane hydrates methane clathrates) in the oceans. They are currently at high enough pressures and temperatures to make them very stable. However, penetration of greenhouse effect heating into the oceans may destabilise them and allow some of the methane to escape into the atmosphere. The potential for this to happen is very poorly understood. There is concern that this may be another positive feedback not yet included in models, although there is little evidence for this from the behaviour of methane during the large temperature swings between ice ages and interglacials, and in particular over the last 50,000 years."

This bears no relation at all to the 'science' in Burn Up. There is no suggestion here that we face an imminent threat of runaway clmate change. Apocalyptic methane releases don't appear to have occured in previous, natural warmings. Most people watching Burn Up won't know how speculative the film's vision of imminent, methane-driven climate catastrophe is. No character in the film questions the idea.

Burn Up isn't really trying to enlighten people but, like Al Gore's film, to create an emotional reaction. To scare people so that rational and measured debate over policy can safely be avoided, so that proper scrutiny of policy can be written off as irresponsible and immoral.

Eskimos

In the first part of Burn Up, in particular, the Inuit are crucial to the story. A campaigner for their cause protests to the film's central character, Tom - head of Arrow Oil, and then, having lost in a legal case suing Arrow for climate change-related harms to the Inuit people, burns herself to death on the court's steps.

This is brutal stuff and , of course, climate change could create challenges for a people whose way of life is so intimately related to particular conditions. However, just a little research confirms that the film utterly distorts the true nature of the problems facing the Inuit.

There is little sign that the destruction of the Artic habitat is really taking place on anything like the scale that is being suggested. Polar bear numbers are still robust, this is from the Telegraph:

"A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has
revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's
interference in the environment.

In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the
polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100
today.

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more
bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years
studying the animals.

His findings back the claims of Inuit hunters who have long claimed
that they were seeing more bears."

Their numbers wouldn't be as strong if the number of seals was in serious decline. Life in the Arctic appears to be in solid shape at the moment.

I know Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources on this particular issue but it is probably correct when it suggests that the major problems facing the Inuit are those faced by many North American aboriginal peoples:

"Inuit communities in Canada continue to suffer under crushing unemployment, overcrowded housing, substance abuse, crime, violence and suicide. The problems Inuit face in the 21st century should not be underestimated. However, many Inuit are upbeat about the future. Arguably, their situation is better than it has been since the 14th century."

That is what makes all this focus on climate change so dangerous for peoples like the Inuit. They have huge social problems and it would be far too easy to forget the genuine issues in a mad rush to co-opt them into a grand narrative around global warming.

Hurricanes

Once again, the idea that the number of hurricanes and other natural disasters is massively on the increase was brought up. It can't be repeated enough that increases in insurance industry claims are not necessarily a sign of increased damage but, more often, a sign of increased development (meaning there is more valuable stuff to be damaged) and increased take-up of insurance (the stuff damaged is more likely to be insured).

I've written before about the actual data on hurricanes and how the best indicators we have are that we are currently seeing particularly low levels of hurricane activity. Beyond that, Indur Goklany, in the excellent Civil Society Report on Climate Change (PDF), shows that deaths from natural disasters have massively declined over the course of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Figure 6, on page 48, really says it all (the low numbers pre-1920 are almost certainly the result of poor data).

More prosperous, more technologically advanced and more democratic societies are better able, and have more of an incentive, to help those facing a natural disaster and they do a very good job. We do not have increasing difficulty coping with natural disasters and the best way to help the poor world enjoy the security we do is to promote the institutions that can deliver a prosperous and democratic society.

Anti-Americanism

This film was shot through with anti-Americanism. The evil characters are portrayed wearing cowboy hats, getting teary eyed over faith healing TV and doing all the other things snobbish Europeans like to laugh at.

Their democratic process is portrayed as an utter joke. A Senate hearing falls to pieces in a flurry of sordid ad hominem. Their political parties have been bought by the oil firms. None of this reflects reality but it is a comforting way for Burn Up to write American resistance to the Kyoto-plus agenda off as venal. At the same time the programme potrays we British heroically promising to wreck our economy to satisfy the green agenda - at one point we even promise to send so much money to China that country will profit from restricting emissions.

Conspiracy theories

There are a breathtaking number of conspiracy theories in this film. The Department of Defense have a study that they're covering up which shows the harms of climate change and plans to take water from the Mexicans. The Saudis are concealing the fact they've pretty much run out of oil. Americans are killing anyone, even on the streets of London or in a hotel at the centre of a major international conference, who might let out the Saudi secret to prevent an oil shock.

However, the mother of all conspiracy theories is only revealed at the end. Apparently the reason the Americans aren't acting on climate change actually isn't an attachment to economic prosperity or even petty venality. Instead, they're hoping that climate change will kill all the poor people and then that will leave the Americans in a stronger geopolitical position. While it will hurt them they'll be the last ones standing.

Just when you think the Americans can't get any more evil it turns out they're actively plotting ecopocalypse! This is absolutely mad.

Ad hominem

The scientist is testifying before the Senate and is silenced by one of the Senators bringing up old, and false, accusations of sexual misconduct. This is a really perverse reversal of the reality that, while the greens are free to speak their minds, there are serious attempts to silence sceptics.

The charge that a scientist or other has, at some point, received funding from fossil fuel companies is just a lazy ad hominem. Most academic researchers get funding from all manner of sources and some of that, at some point, coming from industry doesn't imply they've been bought. However, that lazy ad hominem is used by Monbiot and countless others to try and prevent 'deniers' being heard. Burn Up reverses the situation and has the alarmists as the victims of mindless ad hominem.

Renewables

There is never any question that renewables might not be able to effectively replace fossil fuels. Of course, within the craziness of this story that makes some kind of sense. People don't want renewables to work because then we wouldn't need to wreck the planet. Real world considerations such as providing an affordable and reliable supply of power aren't nearly melodramatic enough to fit in this silly story.

The creepy bits

From the polar bear, with "Extinct" written on it sitting incongruously in the middle of climate negotiations to the bizarrely precise "cut emissions by 90%" banner a protestor is holding. This film is trying to get a lot of messages across without ever openly confronting the audience with them.

At the start, the father can't drive to work because it is "Environment Week" and the kids have taken his keys. Isn't the idea of the children imposing the state's new moral code like that a bit Orwellian?

Conclusion

Burn Up is pure alarmist propaganda. If the Greens have such a strong case why do they have such a need to continually resort to such wild distortion?

Advertising on my blog

Quick tip, if you're trying to sell trainers, posting comments on this blog, in Chinese, isn't the way to do it.

Newsnight Review is shockingly bad

Their discussion of The Dark Knight was full of massive spoilers. Anyone who has seen the programme before going to the cinema will be able to see large chunks of the film coming and have at least one, tense scene ruined.

Their treatment of the themes in the film was shallow. The film is evoking götterdämmerung and the idiot that Newsnight have got on can't see anything deeper than a small minded political allegory.

There was no serious discussion of the visual quality of the film, the pacing, the acting or the plot.

Isn't the point of the BBC supposed to be that they can do things like this well?

The Dark Knight

I went to see The Dark Knight at the BFI IMAX last night. It is utterly exceptional, so good I'm not sure I've recovered yet.

There is so much superb acting. Christian Bale is brilliant, holding the huge film together as a towering central presence. Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent is charismatic and convincing and makes a difficult transition very convincingly as tragedy overtakes him. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine make what might have been mundane scenes clever and emotive.

Heath Ledger's performance is utterly incredible. He is portraying absolute chaos. Veering between merely unstable and genuinely terrifying. His character is never made human, remains a force of nature. Despite having no more technology than could be obtained at a hardware store there is no question in your mind that the Joker is utterly capable of destroying Gotham City and Batman. Utterly deserving of the Oscar.

The story dynamic is great. Slowly layering tension upon tension. The battle between chaos and law and order becomes an epic confrontation. Every moment of the film becomes a blow in that battle and has a deeper significance for it. The film addresses deep questions seriously and without talking down to the audience.

I won't say much more as I don't want to spoil it. Watch this film. More than once.

Public service oddities: Accounts Owl edition

I really don't think that council accounts are read by anyone who doesn't have some fixed, and normally quite dull, purpose in mind. Despite that Shropshire County Council have clearly decided they need to make their accounts (PDF) more accessible, more user friendly. How? With an owl and what I think is a weasel discussing them.

Brilliant.

Coal power, clean or not, is now essential

This quote, from Peter Huber, should be printed on a placard and used to beat some sense into people who just will not accept the realities of energy policy:

"If you're 40 or older, you're going to spend the rest of your life powered by carbon or uranium. Take your pick. Forget about "none of the above" or "less of both." For the next several decades at least, alternative energy sources aren't serious choices; they are pork barrels, delusions, demonstration plants and daydreams."

Of course, it isn't quite as simple as that. New technology might deliver something new more quickly and allow us a third option. That's one of those possibilities that you can take small steps to encourage but definitely shouldn't plan on. If some marvellous new renewable, or fusion, quickly becomes able to reliably and affordably provide substantial quantities of power then take that as a bonus. In the meantime, we need to make sure we can keep a secure and reliable supply of energy available.

This excellent article by John Constable, from the Renewable Energy Foundation, sets out how the Government have been enjoying energy daydreams for ten years and have left the future of UK electricity dark, dirty and and costly.

The green movement have encouraged the Government in their delusional belief that growth in renewables could stop Britain becoming dangerously dependent on gas. To see the greens protesting at the building of coal power plants, when they did so much to block cleaner options such as nuclear power, is infuriating. Yes, carbon capture and storage (CCS) might not be installed on an industrial scale for some time but the dichotomy can't be coal power plants and CCS or letting the lights go out half way through the next government's term.

With supplies of gas unstable Britain needs a more diverse mix of fuels. 10 years of delay mean that the only way of doing that is now to build coal power plants.

Cross-posted from CentreRight.Com.

Vote Sinclair's Musings

I need ego puff points. It will make life feel worthwhile if I do well in Total Politics' survey of the most popular blogs. I care almost as much as Wat Tyler.

Vote by naming your top ten blogs in an e-mail to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com. You need to name ten or your vote won't be counted, and they've all got to be from this massive great list or your vote won't be counted. I reckon those two rules will mean most people will give up and the rest will unintentionally spoil their ballots. Good times!

Public service oddities: I Am Carbon Man! edition

It's been a while since I've written an entry for my little Public Service Oddities series. The series where I share the bizarre little things that public sector organisations choose to share with people reading their corporate documents or looking at their websites. The older entries can be found here, here, here and here.

I have an absolute winner from the East of England Development Agency, the bureaucracy given a pot of money by the Government to help perk up the East of England's economy. These agencies aren't just pointless, particularly in already successful regions like the East of England; they also tend to creep their mission massively. They fund the redevelopment of zoos and open international offices.

Now, predictably, they're getting involved in fighting climate change. EEDA have chosen a rather... unorthodox strategy. This actually has some corporate sponsorship, Anglian Water and E.On are paying their Greengeld, but be under no doubt that it is primarily an EEDA project:

That's right. They're dressing up locals as carbon heros. We're all going to die! Award small community grants and put on fancy dress!

It gets worse. Some of them aren't quite in the shape for a superhero costume:

Wow. I really hope the guy on the right isn't a model.

"I have ridden the mighty moon worm!"

A reader at David Frum's blog sends in a brilliant dissection of Gore's claim that "enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year". The whole, glorious triumph of arithmetic is worth reading but here's the conclusion if you've got no time:

"To summarize, yes, we only need a small fraction of energy theoretically available in "renewable" forms. But we also can only convert a small fraction of that energy into usable forms. And it is far from immediately obvious that the latter fraction is greater (let alone a lot greater) than the former. Before we even start complaining about costs (not that we should not - the laws of economics are just as unrepealable as the laws of physics), we need to realize that there is just no huge untapped (and almost bottomless) pool of readily available renewable energy for us to play with (which apparently exists in Al Gore's imagination).

Of course, there's still another question: where
to get power at night?"

On the subject of green crazy, the A Green New Deal report, via Tim Worstall, looks truly wacky. I'll try and find some time to go through it in detail.

Pierre Manent and Direct Democracy

Pierre Manent is a pretty important figure in France. Wikipedia describes him as "a key figure of the contemporary French political philosophy [whose] work has helped the rediscovery of the French Liberal tradition." As such, this interview is fascinating:

"With the European Union we seem to have reached an ulterior stage of democracy, liberated from its old glittering finery, mutated into pure governance, and not connected to any people, to any territory, to any particular mores. With the May 29, 2005 referendum, we were able to see the fracture between official political action and the real feelings of European citizens, who have the feeling that they are being carried away in a movement that no one can control."

[...]

"True, but the American system, because it is still truly national and representative, is capable of correcting, however brutally, its direction. If Americans vote for President Bush and the Republican Party it is because, rightly or wrongly, they believe those candidates are better able than the Democrats to confront the challenges of the times. Not that the United States enjoys moral and social health in every test it is put to, but their political system reacts to the fluctuations of American opinion and to the vision, accurate or erroneous, that Americans have of what is good for the United States."

[...]

"The problem in Europe, particularly in France, is that our politics, though obviously bad, are not correctible, whatever the orientation of the electorate. Even though opinion is hostile to the indefinite extension of the European Union, even though the citizens of two founding countries voted against the constitutional treaty, everything proceeds as before and it is being suggested that the treaty will slip in through the window."

The whole interview is interesting but these sections, in particular, illustrate that some influential old European conservatives share the concern common among British conservatives; that popular democracy will die by drowning in a supranational and bureaucratic mush.

Cross-posted from CentreRight.Com.