MERGED Great Climate Change Swindle, who is trying to swindle who?

Channel 4 Now Ashamed of its Experts http://www.desmogblog.com/channel-4-now-ashamed-of-its-experts

So who is trying to swindle who? Who is most likely to be mis-representing the truth?

 

Regarding global temperatures the program presented a totally incorrect image. It showed a rise from 1975 to what looks like 2006 of only 0.34C (measured off the snap below), whereas the graph included in the post above clearly shows about 0.6C rise which is getting on for double. Having stated the cooling period was 40 years, there are obviously only 35 years from 1940 to 1975... If they will fabricate like that what else is falsified? My snap of a paused DVD:


Regarding the programme's producer, Martin Durkin: http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39

- if he'll do it once, would he do it again? Or would certain people see him as a useful producer...

 

Some further interesting posts on this program:

William M. Connolley (aka The Stoat) is a climate modeller with the British Antarctic Survey http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=48. His view on 'The great global warming swindle!' is here:http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_great_global_warming_swind_1.php, mentioning several points and concluding with:

He's found a better version of the image I posted (obviously others had noticed a problem):

Compare it with this:


A new post entitled 'Cosmoclimatology’ - tired old arguments in new clothes (9 Mar 2007) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=412 also sheds some seriously heavy scientific light on the topic, concluding with:

 

Solar Cycle Length and Global Temperatures

In 'The Great Climate Change Swindle' the following graph was presented:


Why does the red line stop in about 1975? Obviously someone doesn't want to reveal a problem... It took me a while but I eventually uncovered the reason.

As described by 'Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut', the presented image is the old version, before they realised that more recent data was actually more evidence against the sun being the cause of recent warming: http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/welcome.shtml
Old version:
New version:

This handy site put me on the trail: 'The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change' is discussed here: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/solar.htm

And a mention in ordinary news from 3 May, 2000 (no wonder the presented graph is so hard to explain, it's totally historic!): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/734983.stm

So another piece of dodgy 'evidence' bites the dust ... watch this space ... (as soon as DeSmogBlog saw the list of 'experts' it knew what was coming, Channel 4 removed the names ... (http://www.desmogblog.com/channel-4-now-ashamed-of-its-experts). But let's just look behind what they were saying ... since many people will quite rightly be saying that there might just be some truth ...)

 

Here is latest from the climate scientists on 'The Great Global Warming Swindle': http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...07/03/swindled/

On producer Martin Durkin: http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39

 

That Documentory was bending the truth....

There is no way that such sudden heating is natural, they failed to mention the O-Zone layer, and it's not just CO2, but other polutents like carbon monocide....

The eco sceptics are like aithiests, if you don't belive what they do, they try to convert you EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE SAYS OTHERWISE.

Watch an inconvienient truth....

 

I've commented on the dubious science presented in the programme, so lets go back to the roll call. I must admit that even I am shocked at what a bunch of rogues they really are:

• Fred Singer Exxon Secrets #1
  He was the last one to speak on the programme, and the UK's Cheif Scientist should be after him for slander:
  Oh dear, Sir David King is the UK's Chief Scientist and he has never said any such thing. It was Professor James Lovelock who said it in 'The Revenge Of Gaia'. I'm sure they know the difference, lies but it sounded impressive, so they put it in the programme...
• Patrick Michaels Exxon Secrets #4:
  and http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/climate_fraudit.php#more (enjoy the magic changing graph):
  From DeSmogBlog:
  
  
• Fred Seitz Exxon Secrets #6
• Tim Ball (apparently not an emeritus professor) Exxon Secrets #1164:
  
  
  - but Michael Crichton is "a Harvard Medical School graduate turned writer" who gave a leture "entitled "Aliens Cause Global Warming"", can't he find someone more reliable? http://www.desmogblog.com/channel-4-now-ashamed-of-its-experts
  
  
• Ian Clark Exxon Secrets #1280 and from DeSmogBlog
  ... Natural Resources Stewardship Project
  ...
• John Christy Exxon Secrets #903
• Richard Lindzen Exxon Secrets #17
• Roy Spencer Exxon Secrets #19
  ExxonSecrets:
  and note Sponsors pull plug on Tech Central Station
• Paul Reiter Exxon Secrets #421
  and try here.
• Paul Driessen (author) Exxon Secrets #1038
  ... ExxonSecrets:
• Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) SourceWatch
  
  
• Piers Corbyn SourceWatch
  
  
• Carl Wunsch (tricked to appear) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
  http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_great_global_warming_swind.php#comment-367476
• Nigel Calder (author) SourceWatch

 

A critique by Sir John Houghton (former co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002) of Channel 4 "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is at JRI website. Excellent: http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83

 

Regarding the claim regarding volcanoes on The Great Global Warming Swindle :

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

Some how I believe the US Geological Survey (USGS) and British Geological Survey (BGS) know a thing or two about volcanoes...

Why is it that people just blindly believe what they see on the TV?

 

Solar Cycle Length and Global Temperatures
(the colours confuse (not my doing) and my description could have been better, so here it is again since this is such a crucial point)

In 'The Great Climate Change Swindle' the following graph was presented (the blue line is temperature, the red line is the solar cycle length - just watch those colours, but all graphs show a temperature peak at about 1900):


Why does the red line (solar cycle length) stop in about 1975/1980? In other words, what happened to the prediction for the last 20 years? Obviously someone doesn't want to reveal a problem... It took me a while (because this is such an old theory) but I eventually uncovered the reason. That piece of science was updated in about 3 May, 2000! It has now been shown that there is no correlation past about 1975/1980! In other words the solar cycle length can no longer explain the warming that is being observed since about 1975/1980. The new prediction veers off wildly (after about 1975/1980) from the original prediction (which did follow the temperature up).

As described by 'Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut', the image presented on TV is compatible with the old version (up to about 1975/1980). Scientists then discovered that more recent data was actually more evidence against the sun being the cause of recent warming: http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/welcome.shtml
On the left below, as understood before 2000 (the black line is now temperature, the red line is the solar cycle length - note this is old science (pre-3 May 2000)):
On the right above, Comparison of the New version (both lines now represent the temperature, the red line is the actual temperature (with a peak in about 1900), the blue is the temperature now predicted by the solar cycle length data (the prediction no longer matches the actual observations!) )

This handy site put me on the trail: 'The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change' is discussed here: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/solar.htm

And a mention in ordinary news from 3 May, 2000 (no wonder the presented graph is so hard to explain, it's totally historic!): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/734983.stm

The sun does have an effect, however since about 1975/1980 it's effect isn't enough to explain the warming. That's why they didn't show both lines past 1975/1980 ... sneaky ... but you all spotted that right?

The early divergence (before 1975/1980) is seen to be minor natural variation by most scientists. The major deviation after about 1975/1980 is apparently seen as 'secret' by the presenters, and to main-stream science it shows how the sun cannot be the cause of the later warming.

So another piece of dodgy 'evidence' bites the dust ...

 

If you are disappointed/angry (for example at the propaganda/mis-representation of science) that was The Great Global Warming Swindle here is where to complain:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/?itemid=286480

Complain to C4 itself:

http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE?New,Kb...T_VE,VARSET_TITLE=TV

Complain to the advertisers:

Volkswagon, Hastings & Direct, Bradford & Bingley, Visa, Yakurt, Orange, Audi, Virgin Media, Mitchelin, Zurich finance, Wrigley (orbit gum), Ing Direct (finance), Magners Cider, confused.com (insurance), Christian Dior (J'adore), Kraft foods (Toblerone, Cote d'or), Nat West, Love Films, Citreon, Nissan, Expedia, Microsoft, Ibuleve, Otex ear drops.

Notice how many car and finance adverts there were. I let The Independent off because they published an article criticising the documentary.

 

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

Well said who-ever:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

There is even a letter he wrote to them once he knew what the film was really about...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#comment-27434

(my bolding)

They have blown themselves right out of the water! Into the full glare!

 

It basically said that anyone who cares about the environment in the slightest either doesnt wash or is a communist, or both

I was embarassed for channel 4

 

Where did they say this? I watched the entire thing and I did not hear them say anything like that. They simply provided evidence proving that global warming isn't manmade.

 

Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...2031455,00.html

This guy also made documentary arguing breast implants are harmless.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/3/6/8814/25388

 

If anyone is going to show Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle, then to maintain balance they should also show Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps Channel 4 should be required to show An Inconvenient Truth? Now that is a very good idea... Perhaps those who have not complained already will request just that.

However, when showing either of them it would only be responsible to make the scientific basis clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

(There is loads there...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

(no scientific basis section (yet?), the claims are there, and are the peole involved)

An Inconvenient Truth is still on Amazon's top DVDs list. On amazon.co.uk number 7 (it's been out since December 26th)! On amazon.com number 8 (it's been out since November).

 

They were suggesting that evironmentalists are the bad guys, I didn't bother to remember what they were actually saying because they had already spouted such rubbish. They only demonstrated their own natures (see earlier posts). They presented old science as current. They presented only those parts of the graphs that they wanted (lines cut short, but they've done this kind of thing before) (see earlier posts). Fred Singer even confused the UK Cheif Scientist with Professor James Lovelock in the closing remarks (see earlier posts).

 

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=the+great+global+warming+swindle

It was very convincing.

I've bought into 'global warming' etc. So i'm not intending to cause controversy or call anybody on their belief.

I just say this programme and the arguements used are very convincing.

 

Theres a thread about what bullcrap his was in the UK forum...check it out

It was an embarassment for channel 4 with unreliable sources and basic errors coloured by opinion