Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Real Global Warming Swindle

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-20-07 05:25 PM
Original message
The Real Global Warming Swindle
I thought I would repost this since right wingers still use that piece of propaganda "The Global Warming Swindle" as some sort of counter "documentary" to "An Inconvenient Truth".

The Independent thoroughly debunked this rubbish:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
snips

>>
The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.

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Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong.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.

>>


>>

Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.

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.

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said. (:rofl:)

The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity.
>>

And this is the "documentary" being thrown at us by the climate change deniers. Apparently some of the grossest errors were corrected before the second transmission of the programme on Channel 4.

Here is an excellent piece by George Monbiot on it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2032575,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Reterr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-20-07 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. WTF
"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin

:wtf:

Yeah great guys to be bitching about "An Inconvenient Truth".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-20-07 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Everyone knows that really, real scientific data always forms a simple line -
You can tell it is real scientific PROOF when it is a simple line. Wiggly-lined data is fake data drawn by kids in elementary school -- like Al Gore's grandkids. Really. I'm telling the truth. For sure.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Reterr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-20-07 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. LOL
Yeah...I can't believe the guy just came out and said that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-21-07 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. yeah! and the very best scientists resort to circular arguments, because they're simpler
You can tell if the science is any good, because if it is, it will be using a circular argument.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ftr23532 Donating Member (334 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-20-07 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R!
:kick: & :thumbsup:!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Reterr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-20-07 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. kickin' because Durkin is an ass.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenman3610 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-20-07 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
6. read Durkin's emails to the scientists he misquoted
"you're a big daft cock"
"go fuck yourself"

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/durkinemails.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-20-07 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Wow
He seems like a real intellectual force to reckon with. Thanks for posting that-just what I would expect from a bought and paid for shill like Durkin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-21-07 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
8. Are he and glenn beck in league together? Maybe in bed together?
Just saying...

:rofl:

K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-21-07 03:52 AM
Response to Original message
9. K*R - The Independent is the best on climate change. Great post.

Their science writers actually figured out that we were beyond the "tipping point" just before a big conference in London in 2006. They took their analysis to the scientists there, who conducted fragments of the research The Independent writers aggregated, and it was confirmed.

This is typical...lying liars lying all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-21-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. True
Both The Independent and The Guardian do a much better job than many of our papers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-22-07 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. One letter too many...
Edited on Tue May-22-07 06:39 AM by autorank
..."any" not "many,"least that's how I read it;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-21-07 04:02 AM
Response to Original message
10. Kicked,recommended,and bookmarked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-21-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Thanks for kicking
I think everyone needs to know just what a pile of garbage this "documentary" is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-21-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. You bet..and I'm glad to kick it again.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-21-07 04:25 AM
Response to Original message
11. So they want to poison the planet??
Its irrelavent that we dump unnatural amounts of CO2 into the environment and these people are actually aiding in destroying the only place we have to live??

Now, whats the going price on an uninhabital planet?? Hmmm, if we end up a dying species, who wins??

Those people are fucking DUMB. You can not put toxic waste into the environment and expect it to not have any effect. They call themselves scientist, I think the more appropriate title is Murderers.

What I think is going on, is that BigOil wants the planet to warm in order to melt permfrost in regions that they can not get to the Oil, unless it is melted away. They are wanting to destroy the planet in order to bank more bucks (Which will not matter, because we will all be dead.) Everyone/Eveything loses.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-22-07 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. "Those people are fucking DUMB"
Edited on Tue May-22-07 01:37 AM by nam78_two
You can say that again. Its scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC