My family and me.
TGGWS was rebroadcast on Monday. I didn't see it, but B did, and his eagle eyes spotted at least one figure that has changed: see if you can see the differences (LHS:new; RHS:old):
 |  |
Yes, thats right: they have put it onto the proper time scale; removed the attribution; and deleted the arrows on the RHS. And changed the caption to "110 years". So... looks like they are listening to at least some of the complaints. However, they haven;t inserted the missing data at the end - I wonder if any views though "hmm thats odd - why stop at 1988?".
Don't forget, BTW, that this fig has a dubious source - the OISM petition - so don't believe it even on the correct time axis. GISS provides a more honest effort.
Next Q: can we get a screen capture when they float the 1000 year temperature graph? I think its from IPCC '90 but it went past too quickly to be sure.
Comments
You can see the "The Great Global Warming Swindle" at Goolge Video, too, but the quality isn't very high.
http://video.google.de/videosearch?q=the+global+warming+swindle
Posted by: Soncas | March 14, 2007 4:34 AM
The 1000 year temperature graph is here, attributed to the IPCC. As is a 10,000 year graph.
[OK, those are both IPCC '90. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MWP_and_LIA_in_IPCC_reports -W]
Posted by: Brian | March 14, 2007 5:11 AM
William. Very much appreciate all the detailed work you and others are putting into pinning down the "errors" in TGGWS. This is extremely helpful.
I've chosen to describe the programme as Durkin's dangerous denialist drivel. More from me on how I've reacted to denialist stuff over the last 3 years at George Marshall's Climate Denial site.
Cheers
Douglas Coker
Posted by: Douglas Coker | March 14, 2007 7:39 AM
'"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.'
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
Interesting. I'm not a scientist. Is "wiggly-lined" a technical term?
Posted by: moira | March 14, 2007 9:07 AM
Hi William, you need to shrink the width of the graphs, they get covered by the ads
[Ha, you think I didn't notice? I just don't care! But Ive fixed it now... -W]
Posted by: Eli Rabett | March 14, 2007 7:37 PM
Ahh! My screen has a great blank space between the side bars and the posts start way below. Maybe the side bars need moving further apart. There is plenty of room. But should I be suggesting this sort of manipulation? ;-)
Douglas Coker
Posted by: Douglas Coker | March 15, 2007 5:07 AM
They not only changed the x axis - they changed the y axis - the Nasa isn't 'zeroed' on 1880 - its from of an average of temps from the sixties and seventies.
The original overlaid with the 'Nasa' graph look like this:
http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/6634/sdodgygraphgm3.jpg
The 'Independent' graphs are here:
http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/5033/durkinfakegraphsge0.jpg
although they are far too kind to Durkin...
Posted by: Dean Morrison | March 15, 2007 6:38 PM
you'll also notice that while according to them the 'postwar economic boom' originally finished in 1980 - it now appears to have finished in 1968..
So they've had to re-write history as well...
Posted by: Dean Morrison | March 15, 2007 6:47 PM
The other graph.
The C4 programme also briefly displayed a comparison between solar irradiance in w/sq.m and the Arctic-wide surface temp. This was taken from Soon,2005, Geophys.Res. Lett. 32,L16712.
I don't have the time to judge this properly although perhaps that could be done without knowing much about climatology? It just appears to consist of correlations. One point which strikes me now is that ALL of the twentieth century warming on this graph occurs between about 1890 and 1940.(I am looking at the printed paper). After that there appears to be a net cooling between 1940 and 2000. I am not sure if and how the raw data has been processed. Is this temp. data generally accepted? I now notice that it comes from Polyakov et al 2003, J.Clim.16,2067. (I am not at the library now)
Assuming that the temp. data is accepted what is the status of Soon's paper after more than a year?
Geoff W.
At least Soon is quite open about Exxon-Mobil and the Am.Petrol.Inst. who funded this work.
Posted by: Geoff W. | March 16, 2007 8:42 PM
I saw some of it on more 4, last night.
It had the silliest anti-global warming arguments ever.
I had to interrupt my brother in laws accountancy studying to point this out.
FOr starters, they said "Al Gore claims" or says, which makes it look like Al Gore is making these CO2 and global warming claims. Forgetting about the thousands of scientists who produced the data he relies on.
Then there was the claim that it got colder when we had the great economic boom after WW2, so obviously CO2 is not to blame!
Never mind that we were still not emmitting gigantic amounts of CO2 at that stage, nor that the CO2 effect could be too small at that stage to not override the natural variation, and forgetting about aerosols as well.
Also, Polar bears were dismissed with the claim that they obviously survived some past warm periods fine, so they'll do great this time.
Never mind that there are other pressures on polar bears, that we humans have interfered with their natural habitat, or the effects of PCB's etc.
Not to mention that the narrator blatantly claimed that the hypothesis that CO2 is driving the current warming is at odds with the scientific evidence. HHAhahahahha
They didn't present any scientific evidence that CO2 was not responsible.
Then they got onto Piers Corbyn, and confused weather with climate. He might claim to be able to predict the weather from solar activity, but thats got fuck all to do with the climate over years.
Then, as previously noted the Friis Christersen graph stopped at 1980.
They proceed to take the cosmic ray hypothesis as FACT, not as an interesting idea which needs much further work on it.
Then there was a 500 million year graph of solar activity versus temperature, as if changes in a century are going to show up on a 500 million year graph with four cycles in that period!
IT was incredibly bad.
Posted by: guthrie | March 18, 2007 6:32 AM
We've got a bit of an evidence filibuster over here at Catallaxy.
I wonder if you experts might be able to come and help the leftist-alarmist crowd out.
What we've been looking for is evidence for the likelihood of catastophic warming. Or evidence for the idea that a little human-induced warming is a bad thing in a pulverising and brutal ice age?
They need your help at Catallaxy.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2650#comment-26127
Posted by: GMB | March 19, 2007 3:04 AM
"Then they got onto Piers Corbyn, and confused weather with climate. He might claim to be able to predict the weather from solar activity"
He might be able to claim it, he does. The few times I've compared one of his forecasts with reality though, he's been erm,..."way off" is a polite way of putting it.
Posted by: Adam | March 19, 2007 9:40 AM
Isn't this huge refutation ridiculous? Shall it abolish the critical point of view of TGGWS? And the word "denialists"? Learned from reanimated and so honorable Mr Goebbels, or what?
Reading such stuff, I begin to believe in conspiracy theories.
[I don't think I understand you. The refutation is ridiculous... in the sense that "why should we spend so much time over something that is clearly junk anyway?". Or what? -W]
Posted by: Konrad Fischer | July 3, 2007 12:21 PM
What critical view of TGGWS? Their view looks more like credulousness than critical. "Hey, I've got this great theory as to why Global warming isnt happening!"
"Wonderful, lets spend a TV program on it!"
All refutation is necessary, when your opponent engages in propaganda rather than science.
Posted by: guthrie | July 3, 2007 2:59 PM