JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Did it change your mind about climate?

Date

Graham Readfearn

Nick Minchin in <i>I Can Change Your Mind about Climate</i>.

Nick Minchin in I Can Change Your Mind about Climate.

“I hope it’s a circuit-breaker,” Simon Nasht told me, the morning after the night before.

The night in question was the screening of his documentary – I Can Change Your Mind About… Climate – to about 700,000 viewers on prime-time ABC last Thursday.

The circuit which Nasht was aiming to break, is the one providing voltage to an increasingly toxic debate in the media and in the public about the root causes and consequences of human-caused climate change.

Before the show had even gone to air, the program was causing controversy with commentators – myself and others including Clive Hamilton, Stephan Lewandowsky and Michael Ashley – pointing out its format gave the false impression of there being a legitimate scientific debate about fossil fuel burning causing climate change.

In brief, the show took a climate skeptic, former Liberal senator Nick Minchin, and a climate change campaigner, Anna Rose, and flew them around the world. Each could introduce the other to anybody they liked, in an attempt to change the other’s mind.

“We set out to see who Nick relies on and who Anna relies on. That’s a valid approach,” Nasht said.

As I had already written, the program gave an airing and, in turn, some credibility, to pseudo-scientists, outlying views and consistently wrong bloggers. My argument wasn’t that they didn’t have the right to an opinion, but that the show would legitimise their debunked views.

Nasht, whose company Smith&Nasht partners him with entrepreneur Dick Smith, contacted me asking if I’d be happy to hear and communicate his side of the story. I wanted to know why he thought the format was a good idea, when I clearly didn’t. So in the interests of fairness, here we are.

“The truth is that we need new ways of framing this because we don’t have any time,” he told me. 

“We have to face reality that standing on a high horse of scientific purity is not working. The 700,000 or so people that watched the show to revisit the climate change issue were forced to consider their own point of view.”

Nasht said the show was as much about examining the social science – the reasons why the debate has become publicly polarised – as it was about examining the climate science.

“It was a thought-through strategy and we took a lot of time to think about what we were doing,” he said.

“Our great friend Stephen Schneider [the late climate scientist] came to stay with us – as he often did when he was here. We had a long chat about the program and we talked through the risks and what benefits it offered. Stephen was convinced that the debate had so spun out of control that we had to find a way to drag it back and to have some form of constructive discussion.  When ABC journalists are jostled for doing their job and nooses get held up in front of visiting scientists then things have gone nuts.  You have to find some space where there’s time for reasonable discussion.

“I’ve had long battles with Tim Flannery about this but I suppose if they saw Q&A [which followed the broadcast] he might even have admitted that Nick Minchin was entitled to hold his view. We create breathing space where people can have opinions without people going nuts.”

During the show, Nick Minchin chose to take Anna Rose to Perth to talk with climate sceptic blogger Jo Nova and her husband, David Evans. The couple were so suspicious – or perhaps paranoid – of the film-makers, they arranged for their own cameraman to be there to record the events.

Said Nasht: “The discussion of climate science was really just with [University of New South Wales climate scientist] Matt England and [MIT atmospheric physicist] Richard Lindzen and then the bloggers. Richard Lindzen was Nick’s choice of a mainstream scientist. Of course, we also had Richard Muller – importantly – from Berkley who, I suppose in terms of his particular position, has been highly critical of his colleagues.

“However, we both know the results of Muller’s BEST study and what it had to say about the theories of the likes of Jo Nova and David Evans. It demolished them.

“Jo and David sat down in their kitchen arguing they know more about the heat island-effect [on temperature readings] than NASA and the rest of the world. Well, you can choose to believe the kitchen table-scientists and bloggers or choose to listen to Richard Muller with no vested interests and financial independence with a team that includes a Nobel laureate.”

What’s clear to me from speaking with Simon Nasht is that the documentary was not testing the ability of its chief characters to change each other’s minds. Rather, Nasht had set out to try and show why climate deniers believe their arguments, even when faced with the scientific facts and the clear risks of ignoring them.

“What we know quite clearly, particularly in US research, is that on the extremes of the spectrum of opinion nothing on Earth is going to shift their opinion. But we have a mass of people between these two extremes with a range of views that come down through the scientific polling. 

''There are a large number of people totally unconvinced by the conventional science. For better or worse that polling shows we are about 50:50 split on this position and even in there, you’ve got a range of views.

“We are beginning to understand a bit more about why that is, but talking about the science is not what shifts it. Climate denialists are not mad, they are just human and we have to deal with that as a reality.”

So did Simon Nasht change my mind about whether the show was a good idea?

In short, no.

I respect his attempt to try something different, but the subtleties of his argument were lost in the conflict that the format of the show created.

This post first appeared at www.readfearn.com. Graham Readfearn is part of the BT Blog Army.

53 comments so far

  • Exactly - the show introduces a "false balance" as Will Steffen says.

    Minchin said "from my point of view there are two sides to the debate." There's not two sides and there's no debate (other than the doubt many vested interests try to generate). People can either accept the science as it is today or move on.

    Commenter
    Peter
    Location
    Brisbane
    Date and time
    May 01, 2012, 4:21PM
    • Deniers are alarmed that there is about to be huge and unsettling change to their lives, if the climate science is accepted. They see it as a threat to the future they have planned for themselves. In some cases that may be worrying about how to keep up with rising electricity prices in retirement. It may be as mundane as seeing climate change as threatening their plans to buy a big V8, or a 4WD to travel around Australia, or seeing it as a threat to the personal mobility they enjoy today (ie: the car). Or it may be that they are heavily invested in fossil fuels and they feel that their future financial prosperity is threatened.

      The great success of the denier lobby is to create the illusion of a threat to our lifestyle. They have convinced the deniers that greenies are the new "Reds under the bed". The shows message is that the rest of us need to change tack.

      The reality is, there is no reason why converting to renewable energy should threaten our current lifestyle. That's the message that we need to get across to the deniers of science. If they, like Nick Minchin, can agree to converting to clean energy generation, then their position on the science is of no consequence.

      Commenter
      CeeBee
      Date and time
      May 02, 2012, 12:25AM
    • The science must be settled, because the followers of CAGW don't seem to want to discuss it anymore

      Commenter
      waza
      Date and time
      May 02, 2012, 10:08PM
  • The show did nothing to convince me to change my stance, and neither did the 'stacked' Q & A panel.

    CO2 is not killing us, we are a carbon based life form and would die without it. The Carbon tax is nothing more than a money grabbing effort so they can attempt to bring the budget back into balance. Tell Julia and her cronies to back off, this will do nothing to save planet earth and much to ruin Australia.

    Commenter
    McHarris
    Location
    Tasmania
    Date and time
    May 01, 2012, 4:22PM
    • So many fallacies in one sentence - "CO2 is not killing us, we are a carbon based life form and would die without it."

      No scientist said CO2 is "killing us"

      No scientist said we should remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere :)

      Nice couple of straw man arguments raised by McHarris

      Commenter
      Stephen
      Date and time
      May 01, 2012, 4:36PM
    • Oh dear.

      Commenter
      Daniel
      Date and time
      May 01, 2012, 4:44PM
    • McHarris wrote: "CO2 is not killing us, we are a carbon based life form and would die without it."

      You misunderstand the basis of the concern, McHarris.

      The problem is the greenhouse effect due to increased atmospheric CO2, not carbon compounds in your body.

      The solution doesn't involve removing CO2 from your body. It merely involves reducing or eliminating adding CO2 to the biosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels.

      Commenter
      Wombat
      Location
      Sydney
      Date and time
      May 01, 2012, 5:26PM
    • @ McHarris, sit in a car with the engine running with the exhaust funnelled into the interior. Then tell us if CO2 is damaging your immediate environment.

      Commenter
      JoBlo
      Location
      Here
      Date and time
      May 01, 2012, 8:13PM
    • C02 will go up and up and up. Sea levels will go up and up and up. Boat arrivals will go up and up and up. Temperatures will go up and up and up. Abbott will go down and down and down in the history of Australia as the laughing stock of Australian history.

      Commenter
      Tunnels Newman
      Date and time
      May 01, 2012, 9:20PM
    • JoBlo,

      Its the CO (Carbon monoxide) that puts you to sleep and kills you not the CO2. Look it up.

      Do you think its safe to walk into a room with 100% oxygen?

      Commenter
      SilverTail
      Location
      UpperNorthShore
      Date and time
      May 02, 2012, 7:56AM

More comments

Make a comment

You are logged in as [Logout]

All information entered below may be published.

Error: Please enter your screen name.

Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Please enter your comment.

Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

Post to

You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

Thank you

Your comment has been submitted for approval.

Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

Featured advertisers