TGGWS, again

Just when you thought the Great Global Warming Swindle rubbish had died down, Bob Ward has to go and stir things up again. So it gets into the Grauniad and the Scotsman too.

Predictably enough, the scientists talk about the science; and Durkin avoids this to talk about gagging. A classic case of framing, much as I hate to admit it.

So the question is, why bother write the letter? The idea that Durkin would have said “its a fair cop guv; I’ve seen the truth and I’ll withdraw it” is absurd. What will people that read the newspaper articles get? Not, sadly, a link to the letter detailing the misrepresentations. The Grauniad does get Myles Allen saying the papably false “all this programme did was rehash debates that were had and finished in the scientific community 15 years ago.” (the MSU debate wasn’t finished 15 years ago… or even the ice core lead/lags stuff. And in 1992, the attribution debate wasn’t settled either). Note, BTW, that the letter leaves out one gross example – for the 400y T/sunspots graph, TGGWS infilled absent sunspot data during the Maunder minimum (convenient pic of that here a little way down). The comments after the Scotsman example ar a classic example of people just saying the same things again and again in total absence of facts.

At face value, all its done is garner more publicity for Durkin… and Bob Ward. Ahhhhh.

Comments

  1. #1 Lubos Motl
    2007/04/25

    Strategically speaking, I agree with you. It’s a crazy idea to try to block this DVD. Even if the DVD were not correct – the only obvious error in it is about the volcano CO2 emission – it is legally clear that it can’t be banned in Great Britain which is still a democratic country. People like Bob Ward are mad.

    [There was no attempt to ban it – only a doomed attempt at reason. But you are wrong about “the only obvious error” bit – as I’ve just said, and you’ve conveniently ignored, the 400y solar cycle graph is faked. Not to mention using a dubious source for the T data cut off in 1988, and thats being charitable with other problems.

    I wonder which T graph the DVD uses – the original faked one or the “corrected” one?

    Given that the T graph was corrected, why do you think the volcanoes bit was left in? -W]

    [commercial removed]

  2. #2 Bob Ward
    2007/04/25

    The letter points out that the programme contained major misrepresentations and that it would be in the public interest for these to be removed or corrected before it is distributed on DVD. Wag TV is taking advance orders for the DVD and various people have called for it to be distributed to schools in the UK overseas. The broadcast watchdog, Ofcom, has no power to make Wag TV correct the misrepresentations in the DVD version. the letter appeals to Wag TV to act in the public interest, but their refusla to correct the misrepresentations reveals an apparent contempt for the public.

    [I agree with all you say. And possibly you could argue that there was the smallest chance that Durkin might see the light, but I would have guessed not -W]

  3. #3 J Hamilton
    2007/04/25

    There is a campaign to bring the GGWS into schools in Canada. Last night the CBC did a piece on the GGWS and failed to note that there were any factual errors in it. Journalists are not equipped to differentiate between a hoax and reality, that is why we continue to see Tim Ball on our newscasts. Turning a blind eye to this problem will not make it go away.

  4. #4 Bill Butler
    2007/04/25

    I’ve documented a few more of the film’s “fluffs” (only I used another word beginning with “F”) in a web page that I’ve posted. I’ve also filed a complaint with Ofcom.

    http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
    “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle

    It’s currently averaging 50-60 hits per day so at least some people are seeing it.

  5. #5 Lubos Motl
    2007/04/25

    Dear Mr Ward, I want to say that it is not only the boss of Wag TV but also myself who has a deep contempt for authors of loathsome letters like yours. Best wishes, Lubos

    [Hi Lubos. You’re lucky someone responded ot this or I’d have deleted it. Please stay nice -W]

  6. #6 J Hamilton
    2007/04/25

    Yes we will have none of that bothersome pointing out of facts and all that, better to just posture.

  7. #7 Steve Bloom
    2007/04/25

    Mugwump old pal, did it somehow escape your notice that CA is rather rapidly sinking into well-deserved obscurity in the aftermath of the Republican loss of their Congressional majority? It’s beyond me how anyone can argue with a straight face that non-scientists who “audit” the scientific work of others solely in order to attack it should be treated as if they were colleagues or even just curious members of the public.

    [Sorry – I rm’d mw’s linkspam -W]

  8. #8 Munin
    2007/04/26

    Steve, I disagree.

    If the analysis is robust then it should be able to stand up to scrutiny, and be defensible from spurious attack. Whatever your misgivings, reluctance to share data makes it look like you have something to hide. IMO this does far more harm than good.

  9. #9 Lubos Motl
    2007/04/26

    Dear William, sure, I am already nice, roughly 30x nicer than the people from that particular church. The errors in TGGWS are roughly 1-2, they are very small and inconsequential, especially in comparison with the outrageous alarmist nonsense that is being printed and incorporated to all kinds of junk movies and junk newspapers written by junk journalists.

    The letter demanding censorship is completely incoherent – based on its content, one would say that it was written by crackpots.

    For example, they promote patently false papers such as the hockey stick graph papers, in order to attack Durkin’s fair picture of the history of the climate. Who is defending science? A group of activists paid for alarmism that wants to hide that certain papers have been based on demonstrably wrong math, or a science movie producer of a “very convincing” film, using Ward’s words, who invites dozens of serious scientists to explain the state-of-the-art understanding of the climate and its dynamics?

    Mr Ward and his fellow believers should learn that the same standards of blind belief that hold in their sect won’t work and won’t be tolerated in the whole society.

  10. #10 Alexander Ac
    2007/04/26

    Dear Lubos,

    if you want to claim, that “hockey stick” is false, you should also prove it.

    OK, just assume, that Man et al. was wrong together with 12 other independent studies showing more or less the same result. Then, what is the reason for frightening of American people with global warming?

    Is it money for research? Is it fame? Please, what would be the benefit for climatologists to claim that we need to reduce CO2 emmisions? – they need to reduce it also! So what why should somebody believe to your conspiracy theory? ;-)

  11. #11 guthrie
    2007/04/26

    Oh no, not the hootsmon- you can guarantee it will pick up a story days or weeks late, and there is an even chance they will mangle the science. Plus in there we have our own pet global warming deniers, who use such tired comments as “it stopped in 1998″ and “Its a commie environmentalist fascist plot to keep the third world poor!”

    I do get fed up with them.

  12. #12 Fergus Brown
    2007/04/26

    Hi, Lubos. Why do you post here? I know you have a popular weblog and a willing audience, but who do you think is going to be anything but amused by your ‘interpretation’ of reality on ‘Stoat’? The first time I looked at TGGWS, I saw the strategy within the first three minutes of the programme. Not only were the scientific errors substantial, frequent and, arguably, concocted, but also the language and imagery were rather obviously, but not ineffectively, combined to convey a message of conspiracy, repression and chicanery. I am sorry to say that it appears to have appealed to people nonetheless, which says more about the appalling level of understanding in the general public than it does about the programme.

    If a ‘very convincing film’ were to be made about the science, the climate, and the future, I am certain that you and others like you would be sharpening your pencils before the cellulose hit the shutter.

    To anyone uncertain about how the process works, or where the truth can be found, I recommend reversing 189 degrees the comments that you make, as you clearly use this as your primary strategy in the first place.

    Not that your contributions don’t liven up the place…

    guthrie: the models forecast Scotland to get wetter; what hope a GW consensus North of the border? I recall walking down Jedburgh High St some years ago and overhearing two old ‘biddies’, in their cardigans and coats, remark of the 23C temperature; ‘My, it’s mild today, isn’t it?’

    I do hope the tone of this post isn’t too personal. He just does that to you sometimes. Lubos. :)

  13. #13 Lubos Motl
    2007/04/26

    Dear Alexander,

    the wrongness of the hockey stick graph has been carefully proved at several places – last time by the official committee of the U.S. lawmakers:

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/new-official-confirmation-of-mckitrick.html
    http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

    [Lubos – you’re being rather selective here. Wegman was an ad-hoc product of Joe Barton. The “official” report was by the NRC, and produced answers whch you don’t like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#National_Research_Council_Report -W]

    The reasons why people are scaring others are diverse. Just like in any other religion, different people have different interests to do it. The leftists see the climate threat as a great argument for a global regulation.

    People employed as scientists in climate science see it as a great method to increase their funding. Skillful morally problematic businessmen see the carbon indulgences as a great opportunity to earn money by buying and selling them.

    Tabloid journalists see it as an opportunity to scare people and make them buy their tabloids and similar newspapers.

    Many politicians see it as a method to increase their political capital because they think that most people buy this silly propaganda which is why it will help them to jump on the bandwagon. And people like yourself, Alex, believe it simply because they are extraordinarily stupid.

    There’s no simple universal answer why it’s all happening.

    Best
    Lubos

  14. #14 guthrie
    2007/04/27

    Another demonstration of Lubos being on a different planet from the man in the street- actual tabloid readers (Who outnumber the readers of serious newspapers by at least 5 to 1) look mostly for semi-naked ladies and celebtrity gossip. Climate change is merely another tid-bit but is not a major selling point.

    Fergus- the prediction from the Hadley centre is more rain in winter and less in summer. What do you know, that is already happening. Rainfall patterns have changed even in the past 30 years. An anecdote is that my local golf club changed their greens from clay based (to retain water) to sand based (To let it drain away), because over the past 100 years the rainfall pattern (near Edinburgh) had shifted so much that the greens were under water for half the year.

  15. #15 Eli Rabett
    2007/04/27

    True Lubos suffers from Mars Street bias, but the reason to do what Bob Ward did is that unanswered crap keeps getting regurgitated.

  16. #16 mugwump
    2007/04/27

    Steve Bloom:

    “It’s beyond me how anyone can argue with a straight face that non-scientists who “audit” the scientific work of others solely in order to attack it should be treated as if they were colleagues or even just curious members of the public.”

    Silly me, there I was thinking the least virtue of science was refutability. Clearly I am behind the times: climatologists have obviously discovered a better way of doing science where hiding data and methods from the public leads to a more robust outcome.

    As a successful scientist myself (mathematics and statistics), I have never come across a more arrogant, dismissive, and defensive field than you lot. It certainly makes me far more skeptical than I otherwise would be.

    Link spam indeed. Have you read McIntyre? What are you afraid of William?

  17. #17 Dano
    2007/04/27

    Statistics are used in the natural sciences to test the robustness of the data and resultant claims. Natural processes cannot be fully comprehended with statistics. Sorry to keep breaking these things to the statisticians.

    It is the same annoyance for the scientists that amateurs keep inventing the perpetual motion machine as it is for the plumber to come over to your house. Then you lean over his shoulder & telling him that statistically, .2 more ft/lb of torque will ensure a tight seal, but then the plumber reminds you that he’s using PVC which doesn’t require a pipe wrench, then you arguing about material composition and he stating you were too cheap to pay for Cu so this is what you get and you talking about market economics…

    And so on.

    Best,

    D

  18. #18 mugwump
    2007/04/27

    Ah yes, only the high priesthood can understand these things. Sorry Dano, there are some basic principles of science that apply regardless of the field. Climatology does not get a free pass.

  19. #19 guthrie
    2007/04/27

    Well, comments on the Scotsman article online have closed, with my posts being the last one up. I admit to getting an all too human lift from having the last word. Still, I wonder what MS, the latest defender of unscientific orthodoxy, is thinking about. He never did come up with any evidence for his claim that the Holocene was 6-9 degrees warmer than it is now.

    (ALl the evidence that I have found so far suggests that it was about as warm, at most, and the climate changes occured over several centuries.)

  20. #20 Homer
    2007/04/27

    Guthrie,

    See the following link for an example of how MS supports his Holocene claim.
    http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=634922007#comment568901

    Getting the last word on Scotsman articles isn’t as hard as you might think :)

  21. #21 Chris O'Neill
    2007/04/30

    According to Lubos: “people like yourself, Alex, believe it simply because they are extraordinarily stupid.”

    Much like people who say extraordinarily stupid things like:

    “The stable temperatures since 1998 are also a fact”,

    while ignoring, for example, the fact that the regression line from January 98 to January 07 (inclusive) of the monthly NCDC data has a slope of +0.157 K/decade while the slope of the line from January 75 to December 97 was +0.152 K/decade.

  22. #22 guthrie
    2007/04/30

    HHmm, Homer, we must have a chat some time. Do you recall when the Scotsman had a message board back in 1999, that kept going horribly off topic?

    Thanks for the evidence that MS is a raving lunatic.

  23. #23 Homer
    2007/05/07

    The Scotsman has reheated this debate again, publishing an exchange between Durkin and Ward on Friday.
    http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=697372007

    The article is subscription only, but I’ve found what appears to be a copy on the Citizen’s First National Bank website, of all places.
    http://www.citizens1st.com/story.asp?idstr=105983100

    As you might expect, few points are settled, though Durkin has now conceded that humans emit more CO2 than volcanoes.

  24. #24 guthrie
    2007/05/08

    The Scotsman seems to have an odd sense of timing. Friday after the election, no less. Of course it has led to the usual contrary letters to the editor, one of which today has led to a right old dust up in the comments section.

  25. #25 moliva
    2011/06/17

    Congressional majority? It’s beyond me how anyone can argue with a straight face that non-scientists who “audit” the scientific work of others solely in order to attack it should be treated as if they were colleagues or even just curious members of the public.

  26. #26 CHANEYFAITH
    2011/12/02

    I would like to propose not to wait until you earn enough amount of money to order all you need! You can take the loan or small business loan and feel yourself free

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.