{"id":417,"date":"2007-03-12T08:34:48","date_gmt":"2007-03-12T13:34:48","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=417"},"modified":"2007-04-12T22:18:43","modified_gmt":"2007-04-13T03:18:43","slug":"swindled-carl-wunsch-responds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2007\/03\/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds\/","title":{"rendered":"Swindled: Carl Wunsch responds Aldat\u0131ld\u0131k: Carl Wunsch Cevap Veriyor<\/lang_tk>"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The following letter from Carl Wunsch is intended to clarify his views on global warming in general, and the The Great Global Warming Swindle<\/a> which misrepresented them.<\/p>\n

Partial Response to the London Channel 4 Film “The Global Warming Swindle” <\/h4>\n

Carl Wunsch<\/a> 11 March 2007<\/small><\/p>\n

I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars’ because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.
\n<\/p>\n

The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,…). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.<\/p>\n

I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could “shut off” or that with global warming Britain would go into a “new ice age” are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality [i.e. see this previous RC post<\/a>]. They also are huge distractions from more immediate and realistic threats. I’ve paid more attention to the extreme claims in the literature warning of coming catastrophe, both because I regard the scientists there as more serious, and because I am very sympathetic to the goals of my colleagues who sometimes seem, however, to be confusing their specific scientific knowledge with their worries about the future.<\/p>\n

When approached by WAGTV, on behalf of Channel 4, known to me as one of the main UK independent broadcasters, I was led to believe that I would be given an opportunity to explain why I, like some others, find the statements at both extremes of the global change debate distasteful. I am, after all a teacher, and this seemed like a good opportunity to explain why, for example, I thought more attention should be paid to sea level rise, which is ongoing and unstoppable and carries a real threat of acceleration, than to the unsupportable claims that the ocean circulation was undergoing shutdown (Nature, December 2005).<\/p>\n

I wanted to explain why observing the ocean was so difficult, and why it is so tricky to predict with any degree of confidence such important climate elements as its heat and carbon storage and transports in 10 or 100 years. I am distrustful of prediction scenarios for details of the ocean circulation that rely on extremely complicated coupled models that run out for decades to thousands of years. The science is not sufficiently mature to say which of the many complex elements of such forecasts are skillful. Nonetheless, and contrary to the impression given in the film, I firmly believe there is a great deal to be learned from models. With effort, all of this is explicable in terms the public can understand.<\/p>\n

In the part of the “Swindle” film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important — diametrically opposite to the point I was making — which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.<\/p>\n

Many of us feel an obligation to talk to the media—it’s part of our role as scientists, citizens, and educators. The subjects are complicated, and it is easy to be misquoted or quoted out context. My experience in the past is that these things do happen, but usually inadvertently — most reporters really do want to get it right.<\/p>\n

Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of “polemics”. There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value—clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration.<\/p>\n

The letter I sent them as soon as I heard about the actual program is below. [available here<\/a>] <\/p>\n

As a society, we need to take out insurance against catastrophe in the same way we take out homeowner’s protection against fire. I buy fire insurance, but I also take the precaution of having the wiring in the house checked, keeping the heating system up to date, etc., all the while hoping that I won’t need the insurance. Will any of these precautions work? Unexpected things still happen (lightning strike? plumber’s torch igniting the woodwork?). How large a fire insurance premium is it worth paying? How much is it worth paying for rewiring the house? $10,000 but perhaps not $100,000? There are no simple answers even at this mundane level.<\/p>\n

How much is it worth to society to restrain CO2 emissions — will that guarantee protection against global warming? Is it sensible to subsidize insurance for people who wish to build in regions strongly susceptible to coastal flooding? These and others are truly complicated questions where often the science is not mature enough give definitive answers, much as we would like to be able to provide them. Scientifically, we can recognize the reality of the threat, and much of what society needs to insure against. Statements of concern do not need to imply that we have all the answers. Channel 4 had an opportunity to elucidate some of this. The outcome is sad.<\/p>\n


\nIngilizce\u2019den \u00e7eviren Figen Mekik<\/small><\/p>\n

A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da, Carl Wunsch\u2019un k\u00fcresel \u0131s\u0131nma hakk\u0131ndaki d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerini ve \u201cB\u00fcy\u00fck K\u00fcresel Is\u0131nma Aldatmas\u0131<\/a>\u201d adl\u0131 filmin kendisini nas\u0131l yanl\u0131\u015f temsil etti\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131\u011fa kavu\u015fturmak amac\u0131yla yazm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu mektubunu sunuyoruz. <\/p>\n

Londra 4. Kanal\u2019da Yay\u0131nlanan \u201cK\u00fcresel Is\u0131nma Aldatmas\u0131\u201d adl\u0131 Filme K\u0131smi Yan\u0131t<\/p>\n

Carl Wunsch<\/a><\/p>\n

Ben iklim de\u011fi\u015fiminin ger\u00e7ek oldu\u011funa, \u00f6nemli bir tehdit oldu\u011funa ve \u00e7ok muhtemelen insanlar tarf\u0131ndan yarat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na inan\u0131yorum. Ancak \u201ciklim sava\u015flar\u0131na\u201d kar\u0131\u015fmamaya \u00f6zen g\u00f6sterdim \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc b\u00f6yle retorik tart\u0131\u015fma ortamlar\u0131nda t\u00fcm n\u00fcans kayboldu\u011fu gibi, bazan bilim insanlar\u0131 olarak, kesin bildi\u011fimiz \u015feylerle tahmin etti\u011fimiz \u015feyler aras\u0131ndaki fark\u0131 anlatmak \u00e7ok zor oluyor. Uzun vadede bilim insanlar\u0131 olarak inanilabilirli\u011fimiz, kendi uzmanl\u0131k ve otoritemizi nas\u0131l korudu\u011fumuza ba\u011fl\u0131 olacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Iklim de\u011fi\u015fimi bilimi tamamlanm\u0131\u015f de\u011fildir. Baz\u0131 \u00f6\u011feleri \u00e7ok iyi bilinen prensiplere ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu prensiplerin, \u00fczerinde kurulmu\u015f oldu\u011fu g\u00f6zlemsel veri tabanlar\u0131 \u00e7ok belirgindir; ve pek \u00e7ok bilim insan\u0131n\u0131n ortak kan\u0131s\u0131 bu olgular\u0131n ger\u00e7ek oldu\u011fudur (mesela, atmosfere CO2<\/sub> eklemek tehlikelidir, deniz seviyesi y\u00fckselmeye devam edecektir, gibi\u2026) Di\u011fer \u00f6\u011feleri ise daha az biliniyor. Ancak bizler, bilim insanlar\u0131 ve e\u011fitilmi\u015f vatanda\u015flar olarak, bu tehlikelerin ger\u00e7ekle\u015febilmesinin olas\u0131 oldu\u011funu topluma s\u00f6ylemekle g\u00f6revliyiz, toplumun uyar\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine inan\u0131yoruz: mesela Amerika\u2019daki orta bat\u0131n\u0131n gelecek 100 y\u0131l i\u00e7inde \u00e7\u00f6le d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015febilece\u011fi, veya Gr\u00f6nland buzul tabakas\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fcy\u00fck bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n eriyebilece\u011fi gibi. <\/p>\n

Ben, pek \u00e7ok yerde bilimsel ger\u00e7eklerin fazla b\u00fcy\u00fct\u00fclmesi ve sapt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131ndan \u015fikayet\u00e7i oldum. \u00d6rne\u011fin, Gulf Stream\u2019in ak\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n belki ileride durmas\u0131 veya Ingiltere\u2019nin k\u00fcresel \u0131s\u0131nma sonucu \u201cyeni bir buzul \u00e7a\u011f\u0131na\u201d girmesi o kadar muhtemel senaryolar de\u011fil ki, bunlar\u0131 ger\u00e7ekmi\u015f gibi lanse edersek bilim adamlar\u0131 olarak inan\u0131labilirli\u011fimiz sars\u0131l\u0131r [burada RC\u2019nin yaz\u0131lar\u0131<\/a> var]. Ayr\u0131ca bunlar daha yak\u0131nda ve daha ger\u00e7ek\u00e7i ba\u015fka tehditleri d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmekten bizi al\u0131koyuyor. Ben, takip etti\u011fim yaz\u0131nda b\u00fcy\u00fck felaketlerin habercisi bilim haberlerine daha \u00e7ok \u00f6nem verdim \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc hem bunlar\u0131 yazan bilim insanlar\u0131n\u0131 daha ciddi buluyorum, hem de bu meslekta\u015flar\u0131m\u0131n amaclar\u0131na daha fazla sempatim var. Ancak bu meslekta\u015flar\u0131m\u0131n bilimsel bilgilerini bazan gelecek kayg\u0131lar\u0131yla kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131klar\u0131na inan\u0131yorum.<\/p>\n

Ingilterenin b\u00fcy\u00fck ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z televizyon yay\u0131nc\u0131lar\u0131ndan biri olarak tan\u0131nan 4. kanal ad\u0131na WAGTV bana yanl\u0131\u015f bilgi verdi. Bana, (baz\u0131 ba\u015fkalar\u0131 gibi) neden iklim konular\u0131nda iki taraf\u0131n da a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 abart\u0131l\u0131 tutumlar\u0131n\u0131 zevksiz ve gereksiz buldu\u011fumu a\u00e7\u0131klamam i\u00e7in f\u0131rsat verilece\u011fi s\u00f6ylendi. Ben, ne de olsa, bir \u00f6\u011fretmenim. Bu da bana, halka baz\u0131 \u015feyleri anlatmak i\u00e7in iyi bir f\u0131rsat gibi geldi. Mesela bence deniz seviyesinin y\u00fckselmesine daha \u00e7ok ilgi g\u00f6sterilmeli \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc bu hem \u015fu anda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fiyor, hem durdurulmas\u0131 imkans\u0131z, hem de h\u0131z\u0131 gittik\u00e7e artacak \u00f6nemli bir \u00e7evresel de\u011fi\u015fim. Buna k\u0131yasla, b\u00fcy\u00fck okyanus devinimin durabilecegi gibi inan\u0131labilirli\u011fi az ama nedense onu kesilemeyen ba\u015fka iddialar da var (Nature, Aral\u0131k 2005).<\/p>\n

Ben okyanuslar\u0131n g\u00f6zlemlenmesinin neden \u00e7ok zor oldu\u011funu anlatmak istedim. Neden okyanuslar\u0131n \u0131s\u0131 ve karbon depolama \u00f6zelli\u011finin ony\u0131ll\u0131k, veya y\u00fczy\u0131ll\u0131k zaman dilimlerinde g\u00fcvenilebilirlikle bilebilmemizin imkans\u0131z oldu\u011funu anlatmak istedim. Ben, kar\u0131\u015f\u0131k ve \u00e7iftle\u015fimli bilgisayar modelleriyle yap\u0131lan okyanus devinim senaryolar\u0131 tahminlerine inanm\u0131yorum. Hen\u00fcz bu bilim, bize hangi \u00f6\u011felerin bu kar\u0131\u015f\u0131k sistemde daha bilin\u00e7li olarak tahmin edilebilece\u011fini s\u00f6yleyecek kadar olgunla\u015fm\u0131\u015f de\u011fil. Buna ra\u011fmen, ve filimde belirtilenin aksine, ben bilgisayar modellerinden \u00e7ok fazla bilgi edinebilece\u011fimize inan\u0131yorum. Biraz u\u011fra\u015farak, t\u00fcm bunlar halk\u0131n anlayabilece\u011fi bir dille anlat\u0131labilir.<\/p>\n

\u201cSwindle\u201d filminde, okyanuslar\u0131n s\u0131cak b\u00f6lgelerinde havak\u00fcreye CO2<\/sub>\u2019in verildi\u011fini, so\u011fuk b\u00f6lgelerde ise emildi\u011fini anlatmam\u0131n amac\u0131, okyanuslar\u0131 \u0131s\u0131tman\u0131n ne kadar tehlikeli olabilece\u011fini \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc onlar\u0131n ne kadar y\u00fcce bir karbon deposu oldu\u011funu g\u00f6stermek idi. Ama bu anlatt\u0131klar\u0131m\u0131n filimdeki konumu \u00f6yle yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ki, sanki ben okyanusta nas\u0131l olsa o kadar \u00e7ok CO2<\/sub> var ki, insanlar\u0131n etkisi o kadar \u00f6nemli de\u011fil demi\u015fim gibi olmu\u015f. Bu benim s\u00f6ylemek istedi\u011fimin tam aksidir. Ben, k\u00fcresel \u0131s\u0131nman\u0131n hem ger\u00e7ek oldu\u011funu hem de beklenmedik pek \u00e7ok tehditi de ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemek istemi\u015ftim. <\/p>\n

\u00c7o\u011fumuzun medya ile konu\u015fmaya e\u011filimi var \u2013 bu bizim bilim insanlar\u0131, vatanda\u015flar ve e\u011fitmenler olarak g\u00f6revimiz. Konular zor ve kar\u0131\u015f\u0131k, ve s\u00f6ylenenlerin yanl\u0131\u015f veya konular sapt\u0131r\u0131larak ifade edilmesi kolay. Ge\u00e7mi\u015f tecr\u00fcbelerime dayanarak diyebilirm ki b\u00f6yle \u015feyler oluyor, ama istemeden oluyor-\u00e7o\u011fu gazeteci, r\u00f6portajc\u0131 arkada\u015flar samimidir ve ger\u00e7e\u011fi yans\u0131tmak istiyorlar asl\u0131nda. <\/p>\n

\u015eimdi Kanal 4 diyor ki bu filmi bir seri \u201cpolemik\u201d halinde sunmak istiyormu\u015f. Benimle aralar\u0131nda ge\u00e7en ileti\u015fimde (ki \u00e7o\u011fu telefonda veya filmin \u00e7ekimini yapt\u0131klari g\u00fcn Boston\u2019da oldu) hi\u00e7 bu filmin tek tarafl\u0131, e\u011fitim de\u011feri olmayan ve yan\u0131lt\u0131c\u0131 bir \u015fey olaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmemi\u015fti. Onlar\u0131n s\u00f6z\u00fcne ben inand\u0131m, art niyet aramad\u0131m. Belli ki b\u00fcy\u00fck bir hata yapm\u0131\u015f\u0131m. Filmin i\u00e7eri\u011fi \u00fczerinde bir hakk\u0131m olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 biliyordum, ama sapt\u0131rmay\u0131 ve abartmay\u0131 adet haline getirmi\u015f insanlarla bir anlasmaya girdi\u011fimin fark\u0131nda de\u011fildim. <\/p>\n

Ger\u00e7ek program\u0131n niteli\u011fini \u00f6\u011frenir \u00f6\u011frenmez onlara yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131m mektup burada<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Bir toplum olarak, nas\u0131l yang\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 evlerimizi sigortal\u0131yorsak, felakete kar\u015f\u0131 da sigortalanmal\u0131y\u0131z. Ben yang\u0131n sigortas\u0131 sat\u0131n ald\u0131m diye bo\u015f vermiyorum. Tabii ki yine de evimdeki elektrik tellerini yenileyip, \u0131s\u0131nma sistemimi modernle\u015ftiriyorum ve bu sigortaya ihtiya\u00e7 duymadan ya\u015famaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131yorum. Bu \u00f6nlemler yeterli olur mu? Tahminim d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda \u015feyler olamaz m\u0131? Tabii olur, y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m d\u00fc\u015febilir, tamirat yaparken yang\u0131n \u00e7\u0131kabilir.. Peki ne kadar b\u00fcy\u00fck olmal\u0131 \u00f6dedi\u011fim prim? Evin tellerini yeniden de\u011fi\u015ftirmenin pahas\u0131yla nas\u0131l k\u0131yaslan\u0131yor? 10,000 dolar m\u0131? 100,000 dolarsa \u00e7ok mu? Bu basit seviyede bile kolay yan\u0131tlar yok.<\/p>\n

Bir toplumun CO2<\/sub> \u00fcretimini k\u0131smas\u0131n\u0131n pahas\u0131 nedir? Bu k\u00fcresel \u0131s\u0131nmadan bizi tamam\u0131yla koruyabilir mi? Sahilde, denizden gelebilecek sellere kar\u015f\u0131 \u00f6zellikle duyarl\u0131 olan yerlerde ya\u015famak isteyen insanlar\u0131n sigorta primlerine devlet katk\u0131da bulunmal\u0131 m\u0131? Bu ve bunlar gibi sorular ger\u00e7ekten \u00e7ok kar\u0131\u015f\u0131k ve zor. \u00c7o\u011fu zaman bilim bunlara cevap verecek kadar olgunla\u015fm\u0131\u015f de\u011fil, biz her ne kadar bu sorulara cevap bulmak istesek de. Bilimsel olarak biz tehditlerin ger\u00e7ekli\u011fini de\u011ferledirebiliriz, toplumun neye kar\u015f\u0131 korunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini s\u00f6yleyebiliriz. Bu konuyla ilgili endi\u015felerimiz her \u015feyin cevab\u0131n\u0131n bizden sorulaca\u011f\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelmez. Kanal 4\u2019\u00fcn eline insanlar\u0131 ayd\u0131nlatmak i\u00e7in \u00e7ok g\u00fczel bir f\u0131rsat ge\u00e7ti . Maalesef sonu\u00e7 \u00e7ok \u00fcz\u00fcc\u00fc oldu.
\n<\/lang_tk><\/p>\n\n<\/div> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The following letter from Carl Wunsch is intended to clarify his views on global warming in general, and the The Great Global Warming Swindle which misrepresented them. Partial Response to the London Channel 4 Film “The Global Warming Swindle” Carl Wunsch 11 March 2007 I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[5,1,19,24],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-417","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-climate-modelling","7":"category-climate-science","8":"category-oceans","9":"category-reporting-on-climate","10":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/417","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=417"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/417\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=417"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=417"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=417"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}