“The Great Global Warming Swindle” (DVD/video/movie) is a pseudo-documentary in which British television producer Martin Durkin has fraudulently misrepresented both the data involved and scientists who have researched global climate. Movie director Durkin has willfully misrepresented the facts about global warming just to advocate his own agenda. The program was originally aired on England’s “Channel 4” (The “Supermarket Tabloid” of the airwaves). In the past, “Channel 4” has had to broadcast a prime-time apology for broadcasting another of Martin Durkin’s “sleazebag” pseudo-documentaries.
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is aimed at and appeals to the “Don’t bother me with the facts - I’ve already made up my mind” audience. There may be future media presentations by those who wish to promote ignorant political viewpoints instead of presenting factual knowledge. (Or possibly, the individuals involved have never passed a high school science course and don’t understand that there is a difference.)
Martin Durkin’smodus operandi
for the various versions of the DVD/video/movie appears to be:
1) I want to propagandize my anti-environment, anti-global warming agenda.
2) What kind of wild stories, manufactured “evidence”, etc. can I include this time to provide political fodder for the scientifically illiterate dimwits?
The one cardinal rule in science is that you do not misrepresent the data. But this is what the producer of this pseudo-documentary has done to try to promote his own opinions.
The picture-pairs that follow are Print Screen images from the video version of the pseudo-documentary vs. the factual data. At one time Google had a copy of the video athttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170
. All references refer to this Google “Wag TV” video version although it appears that it is no longer available at this link. There may be another slightly shorter version at:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566
Please search the Internet for other versions if this shorter version also disappears.
Viewers are encouraged to compare each of the picture-pairs below and draw their own conclusions as to whether the pseudo-documentary is based on factual data, or if the pseudo-documentary falsifies the data as part of an anti-environmental campaign. (See the 2nd half of the pseudo-documentary for the anti-environmental campaign.)
This first pair of pictures compares thepartial
temperature record as presented in “The Great Global Warming Swindle” vs. the actual observations as shown at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The vertical bars at the right are the pseudo-documentary’s assertion that most of the recent rise in global temperatures occurred before 1940. The exact words from the pseudo-documentary are:
“Most of the rise in temperature occurred before 1940.” (About 14 min. 20 sec. into the presentation.)
Please take a close look at the right-hand portion of the graph.
The picture below shows the actual changes in the world’s temperature as presented by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Again please take a close look at the right-hand portion of the graph. The pseudo-documentary version of the temperature graph omits the last 20 years of data. (And “fluffed” the graph to disguise this omission.) The rapid increase in world temperatures over the last 20 years has paralleled the rapid rise in carbon dioxide concentrations. However, the pseudo-documentary does not include this data. (Note: The slight cooling that took place from 1940 to the 1960’s was caused by increasing sulfates in the atmosphere - seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
The director of the pseudo-documentary has willfully omitted this most recent data because it would disprove the personal agenda that he is trying to promote. When anyone misrepresents real data to try to present a personal agenda, what he is doing is flat out
As defined by “Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law” athttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud
The GISS climate database is shown in the above chart. GISS is used as it covers the entire earth’s surface. Some of the Global Warming Deniers claim that GISS is not representative. The graph below shows the temperature records from all four of the major climate databases. (NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC, HadleyCRU, and JMA (Japan Meteorological Agency)) All four show similar temperature patterns including sharp warming in recent decades.
Note: After the relatively cooler year seen in 2008, temperature anomalies for 2009 are right back up near the record highs seen earlier this decade.
And what do the purveyors of the “Global Warming Denial Machine” say when you show them that the climate is warming? The following story, posted at DailyTech.com on Feb. 26, 2008, is typical. (Note the date.)
In reality 2008 showed a temperature anomaly of +0.54 degrees C.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
This makes 2008 the 9th warmest year in history. (2005 is the record warmest year with 2007 the 2nd warmest. - Please refer to the above graph.)
The “Global Cooling” assertion by the “Global Warming Deniers” even extends to people who should know better. For example, Accuweather’s Joe Bastardi has been claiming for years that the climate is cooling. In 2005 he said:
Joe Bastardi, senior meteorologist with Accuweather.com, says present weather patterns across the country show below-normal temperatures in the single digits, with still colder air forecast in the coming weeks.
All told, he said, "the current look and pace may bring December 2005 in as a top 10 month for cold Decembers nationwide since the late 1800s."”
In practice, Dec. 2005 turned out to be the 2nd warmest December on record (up through 2005).
As the credit card ad says: “Priceless”
Joe Bastardi also appears to be guilty of unprofessional conduct in that his Global Warming Denial is part of a political agenda. For example, there is a chart that shows “Global Cooling” some 80 to 95 seconds into a Joe Bastardi video that can be seen athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2iF99kOY
. (A close-up of the chart can be seen athttp://icecap.us/images/uploads/SPPI8YR.jpg
) Note that the source of the chart (as seen in the close-up) is “www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org”.
The chart itself has several faults:
1) The source of the “data” is left as a mystery.
2) The time period of 1998 to present is much too short to be representative.
3) The starting year of 1998 is about a blatant example of “cherry picking” as you are ever going to get.
Additional info about the chart’s origin and misrepresentations including “Not just wrong, fake.” can be found at:
For what it’s worth, Christopher Monckton and everything he asserts is thoroughly debunked at “A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton”http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
The slide show includes a debunking Monckton’s graph(s). (More below.)
The actual label on the graph is “www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org”. “Science and Public Policy” is basically a one-man operation run by a long-time Republican staffer named Robert Ferguson.http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/contact.html
The following information about Robert Ferguson and the Science and Public Policy Global Cooling graph can be seen at:
(Run by Robert Ferguson)
The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) was founded by a long-time Republican staffer named Robert Ferguson. According to the SPPI website, Ferguson "has 26 years of Capitol Hill experience, having worked in both the House and Senate. He served in the House Republican Study Committee, the Senate Republican Policy Committee; as Chief of Staff to Congressman Jack Fields (R-TX) from 1981-1997, Chief of Staff to
Congressman John E. Peterson (R-PA) from 1997-2002 and Chief of Staff to Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) in 2002.
Until recently, Ferguson worked for an oil-industry funded think tank called Frontiers of Freedom. The Frontiers of Freedom are one of the most active groups in the attack on climate science and have received over $1 million in grants from oil giant ExxonMobil.”
As for Joe Bastardi’s (not factual) “knowledge” of past climates, on multiple occasions he has stated:
“The Vikings were raising grapes on the north coast in Newfoundland.”
In reality, the only known Viking settlement in North American was at “L'Anse aux Meadows”, and this was used as a staging ground for expeditions that extended as far south as Nova Scotia.
“The L'Anse aux Meadows site is not Vínland.”
“Although L'Anse aux Meadows is not Vinland”
Bastardi’s claim that it was warm enough 1,000 years ago to grow grapes in northern Newfoundland is simply an arrogant fantasy.
In summary, Joe Bastardi is promoting a political agenda from a person who “has 26 years of Capitol Hill experience” instead of sticking to the science of meteorology.
Also, please see: “Meteorological Malpractice
: Accuweather’s Joe Bastardi pushes the “70s Ice Age Scare” myth again”
“Accuweather’s meteorologist Joe Bastardi likes to push anti-science global cooling conspiracy theories”
Some of the Global Warming Deniers “cherry pick” a short time period from the HadCRUT 3V database to claim that the world has been cooling since 1998. This is willfully misleading for several reasons.
1) The short time period is not representative.
2) The starting date is obvious “cherry picking”.
3) HadCRUT 3V does not include the Arctic Ocean/North Pole area. GISS does include the Arctic. GISS is a better database as it includes a larger area. Warming has been greatest over the Arctic which is why GISS data shows more warming than HadCRUT 3V. There is more information on this difference at:
While Christopher Monckton did not appear in Durkin’s movie, he has promoted it. ( Please see paragraph 5 at:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article2652851.ece
) He is also one of the “leading lights” (dimwits) of the Global Warming Denier movement. As is typical of Global Warming Deniers, Christopher Monckton is an expert at making noise and scientifically impaired when it comes to portraying reality. (Great qualifications if you want to be a politician or circus side show barker.)
The following two pictures illustrate how Christopher Monckton misrepresents reality.
(Also see slide 56 athttp://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf
The picture above is from John Abraham’s presentation: “A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton”http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
The picture is a copy of a slide used in one of Monckton’s presentations where Monckton states that the “Arctic sea-ice extent is just fine: steady for a decade”. The picture shows the typical SEASONAL (winter to summer) changes in ice coverage. The seasonal pattern is relatively large as compared to the slower changes due to Global Warming/Climate Change, and thus the longer term decrease in the ice pack is not readily apparent.
(As for Monckton’s inclusion of the “crown” icon on his chart, try
and see what happens.)
The picture above is from the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory, and shows yearly Arctic Ice Pack volume anomalies.http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
The volume of Arctic sea ice is actually declining rapidly with the trend accelerating. Monckton’s description of this decline is:“Arctic sea-ice extent is just fine: steady for a decade”
In the world of Global Warming Deniers, it appears that blatant lying and bullyism are considered to be virtues when you are trying to force your political agenda down everyone else’s throat.
Illustration: Glen Le Lievre
For more info on Monckton’s lies, please see:
“Monckton lies again (and again, and again, and again, and again . . .)!”
“Debunking the myths behind the pontificating potty peer”
Christopher Monckton - A vociferous Global Warming Denier Liar
The following is a quote from the American Meteorological Society.
The graph above shows monthly temperature anomalies starting with Jan.1975 using data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
The “Global Warming Deniers” claim that the world has been cooling this decade. The graph shows that “The Deniers” are willfully misrepresenting the actual observations. Misrepresentations and willfully false claims by the “Global Warming Deniers” are their standard mode of operation.
The 12-month average is setting new records as of the first half of 2010.
1 min. 15 seconds into the pseudo-documentary the following statement is made: “We can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainly never did in the past.”
The scientific record shows that the above statement is completely false, and discredits the person making it (Ian Clark). The record shows there is a strong correlation between past levels of carbon dioxide and methane vs. the earth’s temperature.
The original version of the above chart can be found athttp://www.realclimate.org/epica.jpg
. It is derived from multiple ice cores that record atmospheric conditions and climate for the last 650,000 years. (Wikipedia has a similar version plus additional charts athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
The black center line in the chart measures deuterium (hydrogen isotope) ratios found in the old ice. (Deuterium ratios are a stand-in for the historical temperature.) The red line shows methane levels while the blue line shows carbon dioxide ratios.
For comparative purposes, the current CO2 ratio in the earth's atmosphere is in excess of 380 parts per million and is climbing steeply. If this current ratio were plotted, it would be at the left end of the blue line, and far above anything seen in the previous 650,000 years. We are running an uncontrolled experiment with our atmosphere.
About 23 minutes into the pseudo-documentary, an assertion is made that carbon dioxide is not responsible for global warming because ice records show there have been several instances where warming has begun some ~800 years before carbon dioxide levels begin to increase. The actual 800-year lead is true, but the conclusion presented in the pseudo-documentary is not true.
As pointed out by Jeff Severinghaus (Professor of Geosciences, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diegohttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores
), historical warm-up periods begin via some variable event that starts a warming cycle. For example, in the past, these initializing events were usually set off by Milankovitch variations in the earth’s orbit that changed the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the northern hemisphere. This time, the initialization event has been a human induced spike in carbon dioxide concentrations. (Of note, the article at the above URL is dated as of Dec. 3, 2004 which is more than 2 years before Durkin’s pseudo-documentary was released.)
In turn, the initial warming event triggers a chain reaction/feedback release of carbon dioxide (blue line in the above chart) and methane (red line in the above chart) from the earth’s oceans, which then drives the rest of the warm-up cycle. Please see Jeff Severinghaus’ article
“What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?”
at the above web page for more information.
Alternately please see a longer article:
“The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)” by Eric Steig
The ~100,000 year periodic cycles that can be seen in the above chart appear to be closely correlated with changes in the amount of summertime heat energy (insolation) at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. (This in turn drives ocean currents starting with the North Atlantic Ocean.)
The most recent Milankovitch analysis indicates this forcing factor would have produced cooling for the last 6,000 years, but changes for the next few thousand years will be relatively minor. If Milankovich cycles were the sole contributor, we would be experiencing a relatively cool climate now instead of the observed rapid warming that has taken place over the last 100 years. For further information, please see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
; and in particular please see the red line in the chart at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:InsolationSummerSolstice65N.png
Finally, it should be noted that changes in the earth’s orbit and rotational wobble have a time factor measured in thousands of years. The rapid warming that has been observed over the last 100 years is well below the threshold that could be produced by Milankovitch cycles.
Another assertion in the pseudo-documentary is that sunspots are responsible for global warming. The pseudo-documentary can’t make up its mind whether to assert that it’s sunspots, or some indeterminate “Solar Activity” that is causing changes in temperature; but we will present the pseudo-documentary’s “Solar Activity” chart and compare it with the historical sunspot record.
The Print Screen image above shows the pseudo-documentary’s “Solar Activity” chart. The blue-green line shows the temperature for most of the last 400 years. Again, the film’s producer has omitted the steep warming seen in the last 20 years. If the chart had included this recent warming, the blue-green line would have run off the top of the chart. (See the first pair of pictures.)
The red line is purported to depict “Solar Activity”. If whatever the pseudo-documentary chose to represent as “Solar Activity” had any correlation to observed temperatures, then the red line should have spiked just as the recent temperature has. Of course the red line is conveniently not plotted for the last few decades.
The red line may have been based on original work by Nathan Rive and Eigil Friis-Christensen. They have issued a joint statement stating that the “red line” data was made up of fabricated data that was presented as genuine.
We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled ‘Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years’. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless…it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming.
Ian Clark (The spokesman for the earlier discredited quote: “We can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainly never did in the past.”) supports this incorrect solar/sunspot conjecture.http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=79ef0ec2-4c4c-49e0-b39c-60b13b2ba764
The chart above is an excerpt from NASA’s “Solar Cycle Update” athttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/18oct_solarminimum.htm
It shows the actual number of observed sunspots over the last 400 years. (The number of sunspots has been counted for the last 400 years, and this record is our only direct measurement of “Solar Activity” for this time span.) The actual information as shown above doesn’t resemble the red line in the pseudo-documentary. The source data for the red line in the pseudo-documentary thus remains a mystery.
If short term temperatures followed a sunspot cycle, we should see similar short term temperature oscillations that correspond to the ~11 year sunspot cycle. No short term correlation exists. The pseudo-documentary tries to correlate the minor 1940 top in temperatures with the number of sunspots. A quick look at the sunspot chart shows no 1940 correlation. Similarly, if sunspots were responsible for the large observed increase in world temperatures over the last few decades, then there should also be some unusual anomaly in the sunspot pattern over the same last few decades. No such anomaly exists.
The above chart is from Stanford University’s Solar Center.http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html
The sharp warming in the earth’s temperature over the last several decades is following the increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content. The warming trend is not following sunspot activity.
“Global warming . . . is now well documented and accepted by scientists as fact.”
Solar Irradiance through October 2009, based on concatenation of multiple satellite records by Claus Frohlich and Judith Lean (see Frohlich, 2006). Averaged over day and night, Earth absorbs about 240 W/m2
of energy from the sun, so the irradiance variation of about 0.1 percent causes a direct climate forcing of just over 0.2 W/m2
Original graph from:http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/55125
Solar Irradiance (Unobstructed heat energy from the sun) has been measured by satellites for over 30 years. As seen in the above graph, there has been no significant increase in solar radiation that could account for the increase in the earth’s temperature over the last few decades. The cyclical pattern in the above graph closely approximates the sunspot cycle.
A recent study of solar radiation was released July 11, 2007
“Solar variations not behind global warming: study” http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL101501320070710
“Solar activity cleared of global warming blame”
The original research report (published in the “Proceedings of the Royal Society” - highly technical) is at:
“Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature”
This most recent research study indicates that solar irradiance has actually decreased slightly since the mid 1980s. (Which is what can be seen in the NASA solar irradiance measurements.)
These two chart pairs from pages 5 and 7 of the above report show that solar irradiance is not responsible for the sharp increase in observed world temperatures over the last few decades. (TSI = Total Solar Irradiance, ΔT = observed temperature anomaly) In the first pair of graphs, the ~11 year sunspot cycle overwhelms directly observable longer term changes in irradiance, while random temperature fluctuations add a lot of “jiggles” to the temperature graph.
In the second pair of graphs, the sunspot cycle has been subtracted out and temperature data has been smoothed. In the smoothed temperature chart, GISS is Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA) data while HadCRUT3 is data from England’s Hadley Center for Research. The red line in the irradiance chart shows the resultant best fit while the other lines reflect various damping factors.
As shown in the charts, not only have temperatures continued to rise since 1985, the rate of temperature increase is accelerating. Total solar irradiance (total solar radiated energy) has slightly decreased during this period. Thus solar irradiance is clearly not responsible for the recent increase in the earth’s temperature.
The report also examines sunspot counts, length of the sunspot cycle, solar magnetic flux, and cosmic rays as part of the study. The report’s conclusion is:
Also, “Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming”
Yet the only real evidence that the “deniers” (and their well-funded “Denial Industry
” / “Denial Machine
” ) can demonstrate is that they are not mentally capable of understanding real evidence. Note: “The Denial Machine” video includes Fred Singer’s (see below) assertion that tobacco smoke is not a health hazard.
Also, as part of their campaign, the deniers continue to churn out fabricated/manufactured “evidence” that has no factual basis. Please see Newsweek’s Aug. 13, 2007 cover story - “The Truth About Denial” - for additional information.
(The article is a lengthy documentation of the what/why/when of the “Denial Machine”, who is financing it, and how it is flooding the world with disinformation to obfuscate the real evidence of global warming (climate change).)
(If you don’t understand the above cartoon, you need to see the “Creationism = Willful Ignorance
A quote fromhttp://currentera.com/SwindlersList.html
“Ok, so now we know that Durkin admittedly has no problem with fudging charts and graphs to meet his own ends”
There is much more at this web site.
The low activity in sunspots from 1650 to 1700 is of interest. This dip in sunspot activity is called the Maunder Minimum in honor of astronomer E. W. Maunder. There appears to be some correlation with historical temperatures as this period coincided with the “Little Ice Age”. However, if this correlation were stronger, then temperatures should have maxed out with the late 1950’s peak in sunspots. This is not what we observe in the temperature records. Thus sunspots are not the cause of the sharp global warming we have seen in the last few decades.
The chart above fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
shows a composite of 10 different temperature reconstructions over the last 1000 years. The Maunder Minimum does coincide with the lowest temperature readings, but it is a loose fit at best, and may be coincidental. Of note, the Medieval Warm Period was not as warm as current temperatures. (This refutes the graphic shown in the pseudo-documentary which claims the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than present temperatures.)
The medium blue line that starts at the left edge in the above chart is Michael Mann’s original “Hockey Stick”. Michael Mann’s temperature reconstruction has been confirmed by other temperature reconstructions which indicates that he has had it right all along.
Gabriel Fahrenheit invented the modern thermometer in the early 1700’s. Thus early temperatures have to be reconstructed by indirect methods as shown in the preceding “Reconstructed Temperature” picture. The graph shown in the pseudo-documentary is not based on accurate data.
At about 33 minutes into the pseudo-documentary, there is an assertion that cosmic rays generate clouds that in turn cause changes in the earth’s temperature. This assertion is refuted by the following article published by the American Geophysical Union.
The authors of the above research conclude that the cosmic ray hypothesis is “incorrect and based on questionable methodology” and is “scientifically ill-founded”.
The assertion in the pseudo-documentary may well be based on this discredited cosmic ray hypothesis.
If you want to look at cosmic ray measurements for the last 50 years, you can see the actual data atftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/COSMIC_RAYS/climax.tab
. The solar wind is stronger during periods of high sunspot activity which in turn reduces the number of cosmic rays that can reach the earth. Thus there is an 11-year inverse correlation with the sunspot cycle.
The chart above illustrates the average hourly cosmic ray count rate (1,000’s per hour) for each year beginning in 1953 as measured at the high altitude observatory in Climax, Colorado. (Data is from the above web link. 2006 data is a preliminary average for the first 11 months.) The pseudo-documentary’s cosmic ray conjecture states that high cosmic ray intensities produce more clouds which would produce cooler earth temperatures. If this conjecture were true, then we should see a corresponding 11-year cycle in the earth’s temperature. If we compare this chart with the actual temperature record (the NASA/GISS temperature record shown earlier), there is no apparent correlation.
At about 25 minutes 18 seconds into the pseudo-documentary, the video/film shows an animated cartoon of a volcano and asserts that volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than human induced emissions. The exact quote from the pseudo-documentary is:
Once again the pseudo-documentary willfully falsifies the facts. The following quote is from the U. S. Geological Survey.http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
The pseudo-documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” also abusively uses “cut and paste”, out-of-context statements by at least one legitimate scientist. The result willfully misconstrues the original meaning to instead promote the producer’s agenda. The following are statements by Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and are posted at:http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/03/11/the-great-global-warming-swindle/
He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. ‘I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,’ he said. ‘This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.’ He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator. - Guardian
Professor Wunsch said: “I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled.” - Independent
The above web site has multiple other links that refute the assertions made in the pseudo-documentary.
A complete listing of MIT’s Professor Carl Wunsch's comments on the pseudo-documentary can be found at:
The pseudo-documentary implies that the other people who appeared are knowledgeable experts in their fields. In practice, their best expertise seems to be wrangling payments from large energy companies - especially anti-environmental organizations. The following list of brief biographies is a long quote from:
(Original posting will scroll downward)
Patrick Michaels is the most prominent US climate change denier. In the programme he claimed “I’ve never been paid a nickel by the old and gas companies” which is a curious claim. According to the US journalist Ross Gebspan Michaels has received direct funding from, among others German Coal Mining Association ($49,000), Edison Electric Institute ($15,000), and the Western Fuels Association ($63,000) an association of US coal producing interests (more…). The WFA is one of the most powerful forces in the US actively denying the basic science of climate change, funding, amongs other things, the Greening Earth Society which is directed by Patrick Michaels. Tom Wigley, one of the leading IPCC scientists, describes Michaels work as “a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation”. (More on Michaels…)
Philip Stott was captioned as a Professor at the University of London although he is retired and is therefore free of any academic accountability. Stott is a geographer by training and has no qualifications in climate science. Since retiring Stott has aimed to become Britain’s leading anti-green pundit dedicating himself to wittily criticizing rainforest campaigns (with Patrick Moore), advocating genetic engineering and claiming that “global warming is the new fundamentalist religion.”
Patrick Moore is Stott’s Canadian equivalent. Since a very personal and painful falling out with Greenpeace in 1986 Moore has put his considerable campaigning energies into undermining environmentalists, especially his former friends and colleagues. Typical of his rhetoric was his claim in the programme that environmentalists were “anti-human” and “treat humans as scum”. Throughout the 1990s Moore worked as lead consultant for the British Columbian Timber Products Association undermining Greenpeace’s international campaign to protect old growth forest there. Whenever he has the chance he also makes strong public statements in favour of genetic engineering, nuclear power, logging the Amazon, and industrial fishing- all, strangely, lead campaigns for Greenpeace (more on Moore..)
Piers Corbyn has no academic status and his role in such programmes is to promote his own weather prediction business. He has steadfastly refused to ever subject his climatological theories to any form of external review or scrutiny.
Richard Lindzen. As a Professor of Meteorology at the credible Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lindzen is by far the most reputable academic among the US climate deniers and, for this reason, he is heavily cited by sympathetic journalists such as Melanie Phillips and Michael Crichton. His arguments though are identical to the other deniers – for example an article in the Wall Street Journal (June 11 2001) he claims that “there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends or what causes them”.
He is strongly associated with the other people on the programme though co-authored reports, articles, conference appearances and co-signed statements.
Tim Ball was captioned as the University of Winnipeg. In fact he left in 1996 since when he has run political campaigns through two organisations he helped found: the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and the Friends of Science which, according to their websites aim to run “a proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocol”; and “encourage and assist the Canadian Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol”. Ian Clark is also on the board of the NRSP.
As to the claim that Tim Ball is/was a professor in the Climatology Department at the University of Winnipeg, “the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
As quoted by the Defendants (the Defendants eventually prevailed) against Tim Ball (the Plaintiff) in a lawsuit:
“The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”
(Page 12, Section 50)
Tim Ball is also one of the perpetrators of the “Global Cooling” myth with statements such as: “Yes, it warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down.”http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=864
Please refer to the “Global Temperature” chart near the top of this page to see what has really happened. Is Tim Ball willfully lying or is Tim Ball completely out of touch with reality? (Could both be true?)
Another “Tim Ballism”: “But also, the majority of the scientists who are on the Kyoto and global warming bandwagon know nothing about the science.”http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=864
Please refer to the “Recommended links for further research” section below for links/references about scientists who are on the “global warming bandwagon”.
And yet another Tim Ball delusion: “Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today.”http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855
Please note that current CO2 levels are above 385 parts per million - and then see where this would be plotted on the graph shown earlier in the “The Historical Temperature Data vs. Carbon Dioxide & Methane” section. (Hint: Nothing even close for over 650,000 years.)
Similarly, the pseudo-documentary has a caption saying Fred Singer was the “Former Director, US National Weather Service”. In fact, Fred Singer was never a “Former Director, US National Weather Service”. These claims are not true, and are willful misrepresentations of the credentials of the participants in the movie. These are typical of the fraudulent claims that are present in the pseudo-documentary.
For example, at about 16 min. 24 sec. into the pseudo-documentary, Tim Ball asserts that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is 0.054%. You would think that a real “professor of climatology” would know that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has only climbed above 0.038% in the last few years (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
), and was consistently below 0.030% for at least 650,000 years before 1900.
Additional information athttp://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/06/piers_corbyn.php
describes Piers Corbyn thusly:
“Overall, I would place him in the category of "successful huckster" with the integrity of a sincere astrologer.”
Note: A Google search using < “Piers Corbyn” charlatan > returns a significant number of hits.
The following information on Richard S. Lindzen was not included above but can be found at:http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/50494/
And as quoted at:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html
It appears that the pseudo-documentary’s “expert”, “Professor” Fred Singer, has been a co-organizer (with “Organized Crime”) of pseudo-scientific organizations whose members consist of “other scientists” who were willing participants in a “Propaganda for pay” program. The purpose of these pseudo-scientific organizations was to provide “anti-environmental”/“anti-consumerism” reports. These pseudo-scientific organizations are actually fronts for large energy and tobacco companies that wanted reports by “name scientists” that would hide (via “disinformation”) the fact that carbon dioxide emissions are causing “global warming” (climate change). (Participation by tobacco companies was to hide the harmful effects of cigarette smoking.)
Currently, a Google search using < “Fred Singer” “organized crime” > returns over 1,000 hits. You will find multiple connections to other people in the above list including Patrick Michaels’ links with the Cato Institute (e. g.http://www.cato.org/people/michaels.html
). In turn, the Cato Institute is part of David Koch’s “alleged” “organized crime” network. (Picture at right is fromhttp://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Koctopus_01.html
, and it has a great deal more information.)
A couple of good starter links for further research would include:
For other links, “Google is your friend”. For example: < “Koch Industries” “global warming” >
(Intermountain Rural Electric Association)
The following quotes are from page 2 of a July 17, 2006 IREA newsletter.
Signed by Stanley R. Lewandowski, Jr. (General Manager)
“Koch Industries is working with other large corporations, including AEP and the Southern Company, on possibly financing a film that would counteract An Inconvenient Truth. Koch has also decided to finance a coalition that very likely will be administered through the National Association of Manufacturers.”
There is no confirmation regarding a connection between the above “financing a film” and Durkin’s TGGWS, but - if you could follow the money…?
The following quotes were originally in the New York Times on April 26, 1998 and are archived athttp://www.stopesso.com/coverage/00000077.php
It seems that not only is Fred Singer a member of the “Denial Industry”, he helped to organize it. (Note: The reference to “argue against the Administration” was in Clinton’s administration. The Bush administration has tried to reinforce this anti-climate agenda.)
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr. (New York Times) 1140 words
April 26, 1998, Sunday
The draft plan calls for recruiting scientists to argue against the Administration, and suggests that they include ''individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate.'' But among the plan's advocates are groups already linked to the best-known critics of global-warming science. They include the Science and Environment Policy Project, founded by Fred Singer, a physicist noted for opposing the mainstream view of climate science.
This “Industrial Group” financing campaign to manufacture doubt about Global Warming has been continuing ever since. The front groups that receive the corporate money are presented as “think tanks” and “research organizations”, but what is in back of them is strictly paid propaganda financed by large corporations. Jeff Masters has an in depth analysis that provides additional details. Please see “The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy” athttp://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389
As to whether “global warming” exists, we only have to look at the earth’s canary birds - the glaciers. For example, seehttp://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1731.html
The (historic) Muir Glacier is an extreme example, but there are many other examples. (If you have Google Earth on your computer, go to 59.012N, 136.163W and look slightly west of due north to generate a view similar to the views above.)
USGS scientist Bruce Molnia: “more than 99 percent of America’s thousands of large glaciers have long documented records of an overall shrinkage as climate warms”http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2277
The above is a Print Screen image from:http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html
Portage Glacier, Alaska
Portage Glacier is one of the standard tourist stops on Alaskan tours. It’s about 49 miles southeast of Anchorage. You can optionally take a boat trip up to the base of the glacier.
The twin photos above are from:
They show what the Athabasca Glacier looked like back in 1917 vs. what was left of it in 2005. The glacier on the right side of the photos is the Dome Glacier. Both glaciers have shrunk noticeably in the time interval.
The Athabasca Glacier is the most visited glacier in North America. It is just off the Icefields Parkway in Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canada.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icefields_Parkway
In the past 125 years, the Athabasca Glacier has lost half of its volume and receded more than 1.5 kilometers (0.93 miles). The recession rate has accelerated since 1980.
The picture pairs above and below are courtesy ofhttp://www.gletscherarchiv.de/en/fotovergleiche/gletscher_liste
Do you recognize the impressive mountain in the background? Hint: It’s near Zermatt. Switzerland.
The left picture is a copy of an old post card. The Furgg Glacier can be seen snaking around the front of the tall pyramidal mountain. Also, part of the glacier covers the lower slopes of the tall mountain.
By 2003 there isn’t much left of the glacier. The very dark area below and slightly to the right of the mountain is the shadow from a 500-foot high cliff below a ridge. One hundred years ago, the glacier was thick enough to completely cover the ridge. If you have Google Earth on your computer, you can see trimlines and moraines that mark the former extent of the glacier. To find the area formerly covered by the Furgg Glacier, just look about 4 miles southwest of Zermatt Switzerland - or alternately, about 2 miles ENE of (and a “tad” down from) the summit of the Matterhorn.
The twin pictures above show two views of the Great Aletsch Glacier in the Swiss Alps. The Aletsch is the longest glacier in the Alps and may have the dubious distinction of being one of the last to disappear completely. There are multiple other “then and now” pictures of glaciers that can be seen at:http://www.gletscherarchiv.de/en/fotovergleiche/gletscher_liste
The above picture is a Print Screen Image fromhttp://www.aip.org/history/climate/xglaciers.htm
The Pasterze Glacier is the longest glacier in Austria. The two pictures above show what it looked like in 1875 vs. the same view in 2004. In 1875 the glacier was over one-half mile wide and over 500 feet thick. (Measured via Google Earth) Guess what Global Warming/Climate Change has done to this glacier?
Not only are glaciers melting world-wide, the melting rate is accelerating.
World Glacier Monitoring Service: “The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to decrease, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.5 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2007/08.”
Wikipedia has an extensive article documenting glacial retreat around the world including several “then and now” photographs. As documented in the article, glacial retreat has accelerated since 1990.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
A Google image search using << glacier “global warming” >> returns hundreds of thousands of photographs/images showing glacial shrinkage due to Global Warming.
Let’s do a little simple math. The surface area of the Earth is 197,000,000 square miles.http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-199816
The World’s population is 6,602,224,175 (July 2007 est.)https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html
This yields 33.51+ people per square mile. (Includes oceans) Our surface area allotment per person is a square a little over 912 feet by 912 feet, and our per capita atmospheric allotment is the air above this square.
If you left your car running in a 25 ft. x 25 ft. closed garage, it would take only a few minutes to get into trouble. It takes longer if your garage is 912 ft. x 912 ft. x 5 miles high, but again, the results are cumulative. (If you represent the earth’s atmosphere by a column of air with uniform density at standard temperature and pressure, the column would be slightly under 5 miles high. In reality, the atmosphere’s average temperature is slightly less than “standard temperature” which would produce a slight further reduction in this height.)
There are many people in the world whose attitude is: “Don’t bother me with the facts - I’ve already made up my mind.” Typically, these people hold emotion-based opinions, and don’t want to learn that their opinions are no better than “urban legends”.
Supermarket tabloids appeal to people that fall into the above category. These same people also blindly believe pseudo-documentaries such as “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. These people who have a “need to believe” aren’t interested in the facts. But they are quite willing to believe a fraudulent pseudo-documentary that supports “Don’t bother me with the facts - I’ve already made up my mind.” The “Martin Durkin”s of the world get paid to generate pseudo-documentaries to service this market.
The Producer of the Pseudo-Documentary (Martin Durkin) has a past record of turning out other “allegedly” biased pseudo-documentaries that appeal to the “Don’t bother me with the facts - I’ve already made up my mind.” audience. The following is a quote from Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)
It appears that this is not the only time that Martin Durkin has used “cut-and-paste”, “out of context” clips from legitimate scientists to misrepresent the original meaning. He has used this same tactic in some of his previous pseudo-documentaries. The following quote is from:http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39
(and there is a lot more at this web page)
It appears that “Channel 4” is a co-conspirator with Martin Durkin regarding other previous pseudo-documentaries. The following is a quote from:http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39
The above quote is an excerpt from a long post at
that in turn quotes from the UK newpaperThe Independent
. The entire post illustrates the distortions that Mr. Durkin used to try to promote his own agenda. Single indentions sections are quotes from the Reasic article while double indentions are quotes fromThe Independent
. The URL for the original article inThe Independent
Channel 4 Distances Itself From Documentary March 14th, 2007
UK newpaper The Independent has conducted an investigation into the claims made and data used in Martin Durkin’s latest documentary. As they reported today, they’ve found that the charts and data used in the film were not entirely accurate:
A graph central to the programme’s thesis, purporting to show variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.
Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial “lie” foisted on the public.
After a little poking around, the reporter found that Durkin had intentionally sought out questionable sources and data, then misrepresented them as being from NASA:
However, there are no diagrams in the paper that accurately compare with the C4 graph. The nearest comparison is a diagram of “terrestrial northern hemisphere” temperatures - which refers only to data gathered by weather stations in the top one third of the globe.
However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a “petition project” by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.
However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.
Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. “There was a fluff there,” he said.
When questioned about these discrepancies, Channel 4 distanced itself from the project:
Many have already pointed out the distortions in the film. It’s nice to see that this is reaching mainstream sources.
When Dr Armand Leroi from Imperial College London wrote to Martin Durkin to complain about the distorted science presented in the program, this was Martin Durkin’s “scientific” reply:
[mailto:email@example.com] Sent: 09 March 2007 09:53 To: Armand
Leroi; firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com;
firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: The Global Warming Swindle
You're a big daft cock
Isn’t nice to know that “Channel 4”’s journalism standards include and defend:
Mr Durkin replied nine minutes later: “The BBC is now a force for bigotry and intolerance . . .
“Why have we not heard this in the hours and hours of shit programming on global warming shoved down our throats by the BBC?”
“Never mind an irresponsible bit of film-making. Go and f*** yourself.”
The following organizations provide evidence that:
1) Global Warming / Climate Change is real.
2) Human activities are by far the largest causative agent.
3) Global Warming / Climate Change is a continuing, ongoing phenomenon.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
American Meteorological Society
National Center for Atmospheric Research
“How do we know Earth is warming now?”
Earth System Research Laboratory - Global Monitoring Division
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Jet Propulsion Laboratory - California Institute of Technology
“Global Climate Change” “How do we know?”
American Geophysical Union (world's largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists)
“Human Impacts on Climate”
American Association for the Advancement of Science
“The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now”
National Science Foundation
“Global Warming Greatest in Past Decade”
U. S. Geological Survey
“Glacier and Landscape Change in Response to Changing Climate”
Time lapse video: “Glacier Erasure: South Cascade Glacier in a Changing Climate”
Geological Society of America
“The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs . . . that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.”
National Snow and Ice Data Center - Global Glacier Recession
“We live in a time of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations with an attendant warming of the climate.”
United Nations Environment Programme/World Glacier Monitoring Service
“Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures”
“There is mounting evidence that climate change is triggering a shrinking and thinning of many glaciers world-wide”
(Introduction and links to a 26 MB WGMS report)
The United States Energy Information Administration
“Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy”
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“Report: Human activity fuels global warming”
California Institute of Technology
“How We Know Global Warming is Real”
“The science behind human-induced climate change”
“Global warming . . . is now well documented and accepted by scientists as fact.”
Atmospheric Sciences - University of Illinois - Champaign
“Evidence continues to mount that human activities are altering the Earth’s climate on a global scale.”
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (University of California - San Diego)
The UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre
“Climate change - the big picture”
The UK’s Royal Society
“Climate change controversies: a simple guide”
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Based in Switzerland)
“Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”
Japan Meteorological Agency
“Global Warming Projection Vol.7”
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
“Our climate has changed substantially.” “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable.”
Royal Society of New Zealand
“The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.”
National Geographic Magazine
Scientific American Magazine
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
The charts to the right show the real forcing effect resulting from Carbon Dioxide and Methane as shown in the above IPCC report. The unit of measure is Watts per Sq. Meter. One watt is about the strength of a small Christmas tree light. It takes decades for ocean water several miles deep to warm up at this rate, but the rate is cumulative, and this same lag means that forcing over the last few decades will be contributing to future warming for decades into the future.
The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”
The chart to the right (from the same report) shows the relative magnitude of the components involved in global warming. Carbon dioxide is of course dominant. Sulfur dioxide and condensation nuclei (haze, smoke, etc.) cause increased cloudiness that partially offsets forcing due to greenhouse gases. There has been a minor contribution from increased solar radiation, but this is less than 10% of the man-made components.
For further research about the real data, please see:
NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory - Global Monitoring Division
(Includes up to date Mauna Loa CO2 readings)
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies - Forcings in GISS Model
Illustrates “Changes in climate "forcings" or factors that have contributed to climate change since 1750.”
National Climate Data Center at NOAA.
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research UCAR/NCAR
And what does Martin Durkin have to say about real scientists?
The following quote is from “Life Style Extra, UK News, 'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary”
"I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys.
Is Martin Durkin trying to get us to believe that only movie directors understand science, and legitimate scientists don’t? Is Martin Durkin actually telling us that the real reason he made the movie was to promote his personal war against legitimate scientists? (And collect a few bucks from the “Don’t bother me with the facts - I’ve already made up my mind.” audience.)
Note: Run a Google search using the above phrase for other sources to confirm that this is what Martin Durkin actually said.
(The aforementioned scientist who was “swindled” by Martin Durkin)
1) Go to:http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/CHANNEL4.html
2) Click on: “Discussion of some of the science and other distortion in the "Swindle" (Bill Butler)”
1) Go to:http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1966036.htm
2) Click on: “Durango Bill's Debunking the Deniers of Global Warming”
(Listed under “Further Information”)
(Just before the Comments section)
The following is a copy of an online complaint that the author has filed with the UK’s Office of Communications (Ofcom)http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/
To: Complaints at the UK’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/
While I am not a citizen of the United Kingdom and did not see the original “Channel 4” broadcast of “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, the program has been widely posted on the Internet via YouTube.com (where I first saw it), Google Videos, and subsequently via several dozen “pirate” postings.
I understand that there have been multiple formal complaints filed in regard to the broadcast. I am not familiar with the specific UK broadcasting regulations that have been violated, but I would like to file a complaint that the claimed data and observational assertions made in the program are in fact false and fictitious. In any scientific investigation you are allowed to “interpret” real data/observations, but if you falsify the source data you are willfully misleading other people into potentially believing these falsified observations. In turn erroneous governmental/industry policy decisions may be based on this false data, and public acceptance of these false observations may lead to decisions that are misguided and wasteful of taxpayer funds.
I have outlined some of my observations on the misleading/fraudulent data regarding the “pseudo-documentary” at a web page titled: “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
In an effort to try to stop the worldwide dissemination (via television in other countries, the Internet, DVD sales, etc.) of what I regard as fraudulent/dishonest material, I ask that you force Channel 4 (and any other directly supervised parties) to publicly apologize for presenting the program and force them to state that the presentation was not based on factual data.
A representative of the ABC contacted me (by E-mail) before their July 12, 2007 scheduled broadcast of “The Swindle”. All information/inquiries from them will remain confidential as per their request, but the following is part of my July 7, 2007 reply.
Can anything meaningful be done to mitigate "Global Warming" (Climate Change)?
If something meaningful can be done, what will it cost? (And you better have a firm grip on something when you address this problem.)
The one sure guarantee regarding the presentation of the movie is that policy makers will not be able to make rational decisions. Anything that they might do will instead be based on emotional opinions of the voters who have elected them. I fear the eventual outcome will be that a great deal of money will be wasted on "pseudo-solutions" that will accomplish - nothing.
In any “Ace” detective story, if you want to find “the culprit”, rule Number One is to either 1) “Follow the money” or 2) “Follow the politics”. In this case rule number 2) seems applicable as it seems the United States is not the only country in the world where “high ranking government officials” declare themselves to be disciples whose mission is to redefine science.
There have been multiple stories in the Australian press that the ABC’s Board of Directors forced the movie to be shown despite the advice of the ABC’s science expert, Robyn Williams. In turn, the ABC’s Board of Directors is appointed by the Governor-General. The information shown below about four (a majority) of the board’s seven directors can be found athttp://www.answers.com/topic/australian-broadcasting-corporation
(unless otherwise indicated), and provides some insight as to the politics involved in the board’s decision to show the film.
Maurice Newman (ABC chairperson):
“Maurice Newman is the current Chairperson of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, as well as chair of the board of the Australian Stock Exchange. He is a close personal friend of Australian Prime Minister John Howard.”
“Albrechtsen's political views are strongly conservative, and she has supported the Howard government, the foreign policies of the Bush administration, the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq.”
“Brunton's appointment to the ABC Board by the Australian Government of John Howard created controversy given his ideological partisanship. However, it continues that government's attempt to move the ABC culture to a political position more amenable to its own.”
(From “Australian Broadcasting Corporation adopts new “bias” rules”http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/nov2006/abc-n04.shtml
) “Prominent in the audience was ABC board member Janet Albrechtsen, a right-wing Murdoch columnist who reportedly initiated the policy shift. “An awful lot of work has gone into drawing up these guidelines,” she proudly told reporters. Another extreme right-wing Howard appointee to the board, Keith Windschuttle, also praised the guidelines.”
As noted earlier, Martin Durkin keeps changing the content of the movie as one after another of his misrepresentations are revealed. The picture below (fromhttp://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/
) shows a new graph that was added to the July 12, 2007 Australian version of Martin Durkin’s pseudo-documentary.
See if you can find any problems with the “quality” and “reliability” of Martin Durkin’s “research”.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was December 7, 1941. (All dates are local time)
Germany surrendered on May 7, 1945.
Japan formally surrendered on September 2, 1945.
The earliest that the“Post War Economic Boom”
could begin would have to be sometime after September 2, 1945.
When did the“Post War Economic Boom”
begin according to Martin Durkin’s “Research”?
And this is from someone who claims: “Martin Durkin studied ancient and medieval history at University College London”http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/martin_durkin.html
Question: Why is there no reference to a degree?
As for the “ACIA” source cited in the graph, the real “Arctic Climate Impact Assessment” includes a 140-page report titledImpacts of a Warming Arctic
and a much larger 1020-page, “Scientific Report”Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
book. Both have conclusions that are radically different than Martin Durkin’s assertions. For example, from page 4 of ACIA’sPolicy Document
“1. The Arctic climate is now warming rapidly and much larger changes are projected.”
The picture to the right is from page 35 in ACIA’s “Arctic Climate: Past and Present” report at:http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/ACIA_Science_Chapters_Final/ACIA_Ch02_Final.pdf
It appears to be the source for Durkin’s graph. Once again take a close look at the right hand portion of the graphs where Durkin has omitted the warmest year on record (original source uses data through 2003) as well as the steep rise in the smoothed curve.
(And a “thank you” goes to Wolfgang Wieser for finding this source.)
Stay tuned for future misrepresentations by Martin Durkin. . .
Also please see:
The “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine”
(It’s actually a farm in very rural Oregon)
Roger Cohen’s proposed $5,000 bet
A (retired) Exxon Mobil executive’s attempt to use money to promote his personal agenda.
Note: The author (Bill Butler) of this web page is amagna cum laude
, Computer Science graduate of Brown University. A brief bio can be found at message # 8http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CSAtrium/
(CSAtrium is a Yahoo group for the “alums of Brown University’s Computer Science Department and Computer Engineering graduates”.)