Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-04-26 15:18:18

Channel-4 no stranger to controversy when they broadcast a veiled muslim doing some Allah-Akbar dance across England during the Chirstmas period to drown out all Chirstian festivities.
Then their reality tv show got record breaking viewers as celebrities locked in a room together suddenly started attack each other with personal attacks and racial slurs.
:shock:

So let's move on to their next ground-breaking tv-show/movie, called the global warming swindle
The show has been uploaded to the likes of youtube and veoh so you won't have to look far

We would all love to see this global warming question answered, both the left and the right had hijacked this issue for their political gain, but any decent and trustworthy group scientists should still be able to answer this climate change question.

Here's a re-cap for those of you who never watched this ground breaking C4 programe.
The guys on the tvprogram/movie first start off with this great discovery, that they know the answer to climate change and are ready to present all the facts about temperature rises, solar activity, co2 and so on....but only do so for about 2 mins, but then quickly go on a bashing spree, k attacking greens, mocking the hippie community, leftist media outlets, anti-capitalists...you see their political colors soon enough.

-Durkin is known to take liberties with his so-called facts (some of his facts come from hundred year old controversial papers).
-They quote Lowell Ponte who is the kind of pseudo scientist that thinks elvis is alive, and cigarettes that cause cancer are myths
-The show makes political claims that most climate scientists have been bought-off by greenpeace (wow Greenpeace must have a lot of money )
-Ball has been lying about his credentials :shock:
-British Antarctic Survey Group, IPCC and people from RealClimate are considering taking legal action against the show
- Carl Wunsch has stated that he was completely misrepresented and misled in the movie
-The Independent newspaper has covered the Wunch controversy, showing Channel4's lack of credibility
-Independent Television Commission has already complain about Durkin finding that his so called documentary shows that four complainants had been mislaed viewers and show distorted events.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Co … 60,00.html
http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Cha … windle.pdf
http://griperblade.blogspot.com/2007/03 … cally.html

See Cindy's thread for more comedy
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5277

cIclops · 2007-04-29 05:50:36

We must have seen different versions of the documentary.

Yes there is commentary on the politics at the beginning, then there is a long section about the technical aspects of climate change. It presents the agreed facts such as: increasing CO2 levels, sea level and global temperature and then focuses on the disputed areas, such as paleoclimatology reconstructions of global temperature and the limitations of Global Circulation models. It then offers an alternate theory of one forcing factor ignored by AGW theory, that is the solar cycle influence on cosmic rays and its affect on cloud formation.

Yes later on the program goes into the history behind the massive funding supporting research into the affect of CO2 on climate, and it also examines the consequences of excessive restrictions on the use of fossil fuels by poor countries.

As this is a science and technology forum I won't comment on the attempts of opponents to censor and silence the producers of this provocative and informative documentary.

For those of you who would like to make up your own minds .. the video is here

Josh Cryer · 2007-04-29 20:18:26

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … /swindled/

cIclops · 2007-04-30 02:43:47

As you may know the Real Climate authors are strong advocates of AGW theory and work in Climate modeling. Their response to two issues raised in the documentary is far from satisfactory:

o invoking sulphate aerosols to overwhelm CO2 forcing only between 1940 and 1980

o claiming that the measured temperature rise 800 years before rises in CO2 (as seen in ice cores) is not important and that it does not disprove that CO2 caused the later changes

The documentary did well to highlight these two issues and many others they did not address.

Josh Cryer · 2007-05-02 01:21:20

The data does back up sulphates though.

I don't know about the CO2 lag, however. It is a big mystery. The comments linked articles suggesting that the lag was not as large as was presumed. I just don't know about that.

cIclops · 2007-05-02 03:26:01

Yes there are a lot of mysteries in Climate science, the biggest one is understanding how it all works.

Got any references to that aerosol data?

Sulphate aerosols are produced when coal is burned. AFAIK the amount of coal being burned has steadily increased since 1940, if anything it has sharply increased since China began it's modernization in the 1980s. So why were these aerosols strong enough to reduce global warming between 1940 and 1980 but appear to have no effect since?

The area that is weakest in AGW theory is that of modeling. The results from these models are used as "evidence" of global warming when in fact they are nothing more than calculations based on an incomplete understanding of climate. There are many models, you can pick whichever one you want to "prove" your own vision of what will happen. Lobbyists take the most extreme cases, politicians and governments take those that suit their agendas.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-10-18 03:58:31

cIclops, I hope you haven't been reading Michael Crichton’s confusing fictional rants. Many Republicans have re-acted without logic and acted without thinking and just took a stance opposite of Al-Gore by calling the whole pollution thing a leftist plot and a democrat conspiracy, this just makes some members of the GOP look like tinfoil heads. Oil giants and anti-AlGore camp claim that all scientists on the planet declared the Earth would freeze over in 1970's like that ridiculous DayAfterTomorrow movie, that of course ain't true and the whole global cooling fiasco is largely a myth. Yes it is true that some scientists were not sure which pollutants would become the dominant force - pollutants that trap IR and lead to warming or aerosol pollutants that act as Anti-global warming gases and contribute to cooling - some people didn't know which would be dominant in the near future and a small group of non-mainstream scientists predicted we could see an ice-age. There were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosols that would cool the planet Earth, not all gas causes warming some molecules of aerosol force cooling, it is a process not unlike you may see on Saturn's Moon Titan. It had however become clear by the majority of Scientists that CO2 warming would probably be dominant and this conclusion has subsequently strengthened in later years by further measurements and data. Samples from our Earth tells us more on the subject, 650,000 years of ice have now been analyzed for greenhouse gas concentrations. You do know that most of the Earth banned the use of CFC aerosols during the 80s don't you ? however the CO2 keeps getting pumped out non-stop.
I'm sure you are a rational person and should be able to judge what is happening

Here's another story for you on the GOP and Global warming
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21337492/
Global warming starts to split GOP contenders

Candidates divided over policy solutions, but most recognize the threat

Looks like some people are finally starting to pull their heads out of the sand

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-18 06:49:23

cIclops, I hope you haven't been reading Michael Crichton’s confusing fictional rants. Many Republicans have re-acted without logic and acted without thinking and just took a stance opposite of Al-Gore by calling the whole pollution thing a leftist plot and a democrat conspiracy, this just makes some members of the GOP look like tinfoil heads. Oil giants and anti-AlGore camp claim that all scientists on the planet declared the Earth would freeze over in 1970's like that ridiculous DayAfterTomorrow movie, that of course ain't true and the whole global cooling fiasco is largely a myth.

Just look at there solutions: Government, Government, Government. When there's global warming, that's just an excuse for Government to raise your taxes and take more money out of your pocket. I don't like Government taking my money.

Commodore · 2007-10-18 09:10:39

I might take democrats seriously if they actually tried to do anything about fossil fuel use. But you can't name a viable alternetive they they don't try to block.

What they do instead is limit the supply of the derivative fuels by denying use the ability to produce, and then try to pass windfall profit taxes when the price goes up. And then try to force the car companies to make plastic cars.

Their energy policy might as well be "Save gas, fart in a jar".

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-18 15:30:36

I might take democrats seriously if they actually tried to do anything about fossil fuel use. But you can't name a viable alternetive they they don't try to block.
What they do instead is limit the supply of the derivative fuels by denying use the ability to produce, and then try to pass windfall profit taxes when the price goes up. And then try to force the car companies to make plastic cars.
Their energy policy might as well be "Save gas, fart in a jar".

We need a new Democratic Party, one that actually stands for freedom and democracy and doesn't fawn over Castro, Hugo Chavez, Putin and say, "What great leaders they are! We're not perfect, so they can do whatever they want!" I've read the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs, in an article talking about Putin, it did nothing but make excuses for him, pointing out some American shortcomings and saying that we shouldn't be so judgemental, and "what great things Putin has done for Russia!" Go to any magazine stand in the United States, and we find what I call a "Soviet Propaganda" stand, all the old English language "Soviet Press" is represented. I watch Fox News, and read some of NewsMax, then I read Time, Newsweek, even the Economist now. I've noticed the Economist has been sliding leftward recently, it has had a prior position in favor of the Iraq War, has been too cowardly to openly break with that, but its been going on as if Hillary Clinton was already President and that an election was a mere formality for her coronation.

Since much of the same Press bleats on about Global Warming that also delivers warm praise for all the leftwing dictators of the World, I'm not sure how much of it is true and how much is just propaganda. The Carbon levels may be rising, but who's to say, how much carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming. I haven't seen a similar trending upward of global warming that I have for parts per million of carbon dioxide, the scientists of course do their "chicken little" routine and say their is a build in delay to the global system, and that we must make serious sacrifices for global warming etc.

Well, if you believe that, then I swear I saw a flying saucer! Took its picture, but silly me, I placed my thumb in front of the lens, but I insist we must prepare for an all out invasion!

Terraformer · 2007-10-19 15:39:21

I accept CO2 causes global warming. But only on places like Venus with 89 bars of the stuff.

Commodore · 2007-10-19 18:37:45

Whether or not Global warming is happening or not, or if its our our fault, theres a finite supply of fossil fuels, and we don't want to be the last one addicted to the stuff. Thats reason enough to find something else asap.

We're a big ship, and it is going to take us a long time economically for us to adjust course. And it makes sense economically for us to be first to develope the stuff to do it.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-20 00:54:02

There is nothing really that government needs to do.

I'm all for government research programs to find ways to produce alternate fuels for cars

But I'm against the Democrats prefered solution of raising taxes on gasoline trying supposedly to make existing alternate fuels attractive by comparison. I don't like Government using its regulatory authority or its ability to tax to try an force us to make economic decisions we otherwise wouldn't make. I like hybrid vehicles for instance, and the car companies should make them cheaper, but I don't want the government to force me to buy the more expensive hybrid that exist now by making cars that aren't hybrids more expensive.

The market will take care of the oil shortage, as the price goes higher naturally, and government doesn't profit form it, then there are incentives to develop alternatives.

Commodore · 2007-10-20 19:16:17

Punishing the "politically incorrect" is just a scheme to derive massive amounts revenue from something so that they can start spending it, and then tax everything else in sight when that revenue declines to save the program. For the children of course. Their already finding new ways to tax Prius owners cause they don't pay as much gas taxes. You can't win with them.

What we should do is give tax breaks to those we engage in positive behavior. The company that releases most fuel efficient car gets a big tax break. Those who put a big set of solar panel on their roof get a big tax break. And so on.

Use the carrot, not the stick.

cIclops · 2007-11-11 16:15:34

Yes it is true that some scientists were not sure which pollutants would become the dominant force - pollutants that trap IR and lead to warming or aerosol pollutants that act as Anti-global warming gases and contribute to cooling - some people didn't know which would be dominant in the near future and a small group of non-mainstream scientists predicted we could see an ice-age. There were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosols that would cool the planet Earth, not all gas causes warming some molecules of aerosol force cooling, it is a process not unlike you may see on Saturn's Moon Titan. It had however become clear by the majority of Scientists that CO2 warming would probably be dominant and this conclusion has subsequently strengthened in later years by further measurements and data.

My apologies for not responding sooner.

Very few scientists work on specialized areas such as aerosols or radiative forcing. AFAIK the aerosol work is far from understood, not even the sign of the forcing is known. The radiative forcing theory that GCMs are based on and is used to show CO2 warming is significant, is apparently unavailable. As is the source code used by the GCMs themselves. The proxy data that supports the paleoclimatic reconstructions that claim to show current global temperatures are significantly higher than in the last 1000 years is also strangely unavailable, and some of the analysis methods used have been shown to be seriously flawed. The so called "science" is not well founded or even available for review. The observational data is sparse and of limited duration. Satellite global temperature measurements only go back to 1980, and since 2001 have shown little change.

The fact that many scientists give consent to the results does not make them right. There are many scientists who do not accept that there is a significant contribution to global temperature from increased CO2 levels.

Having said all that, this does not prove that increased levels of CO2 are not having a significant effect on global temperatures, it merely says that currently there is insufficient science and evidence to support it.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-04-26 15:18:18

Re: Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

#2 2007-04-29 05:50:36

Re: Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

#3 2007-04-29 20:18:26

Re: Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

#4 2007-04-30 02:43:47

Re: Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

#5 2007-05-02 01:21:20

Re: Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

#6 2007-05-02 03:26:01

Re: Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

#7 2007-10-18 03:58:31

Re: Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

#8 2007-10-18 06:49:23

Re: Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

#9 2007-10-18 09:10:39

Re: Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

#10 2007-10-18 15:30:36

Re: Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

#11 2007-10-19 15:39:21

Re: Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

#12 2007-10-19 18:37:45

Re: Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

#13 2007-10-20 00:54:02

Re: Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

#14 2007-10-20 19:16:17

Re: Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

#15 2007-11-11 16:15:34

Re: Dramatic Irony : Durkin&Ball sued for acting like Fraudsters

Board footer