What's wrong with the Great Global Warming Swindle?

I'd say Durkin comes off looking pretty good. For a sweaty human bobble head. In headlights.

Let's face it, we're 10 some odd years on here and the inverse relationship between the substance of a denialist's 'argument' and their conviction in its veracity is only strengthening. This is never going stop. It's not even clear the oil industry needs to bankroll this train anymore. The intended audience is so converted to the cause they've got plenty of pro-bono keyboard warriors while the politicians have always been on the payroll so no marginal cost there.

Now the G8 has cast its lot in for nothing, along with the large emerging nations. US Congressional members are illiciting egregious bribes to even consider woefully inadequate emission targets monitored by the industry friendly USDA. And failing to secure passage at that. The Obama administration looks on, does nothing, sandbags latest impetus for investigation into egregious prior administration law breaking.

At what point to we resign ourselves to being easter islanders, stop worrying, and learn to love the inane and wanton ignorance of denialists? I myself am getting there.

At what point to we resign ourselves to being easter islanders, stop worrying, and learn to love the inane and wanton ignorance of denialists?

When you find a second inhabitable planet for my son and his descendants. Until then I am fighting.

brilliant. thanks for the work that went into this "myth-busting"!

Also of interest:

greenmans Watts up with Watts?...

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#play/all/uploads-all/0/dcxVwEf…

Actually i remember when The Age of Stupid was launched in the UK, Franny Armstrong was interviewed along with Durkin.

Franny gave him the first 'Stupid' certificate.

http://www.ageofstupid.net/news/stupid_vs_swindle_live_on_newsnight

Does anyone have Durkin's responses to the climatologist's comments in the ABC interview?

Jones interviews Durkin [Part 1](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE),and [Part 2](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8)

Jones interviews Ian Plimer [Part 1](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s52wgMs9Sfw), and [Part 2](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45mO2HW4omA), and [Part 3](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17rEnQYbB28)

[Here is the full 7 parts of the Durkin Debate](http://rationallythinkingoutloud.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/abc-australia…) including the questions put by the crazies from the [Citizens Electoral Council](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Electoral_Council) who swamped the audience applications.

Thanks Tim. I've added Peter's video essay to my list of articles that debunk Durkin's piece.
âThe Great Global Warming Swindleâ? Shams & Lies

I've looked at Greenman's other "Crock of the Week" -videos, and they're very informative! He really seems to know his climate science. Thanks for the link, Tim, and these videos are recommended to anyone interested in climate change!

Mab, watching part 1, I wonder why, if (as Durkin avows is true) there are modern graphs that show that there has been no significant increase in global temperatures, why did he use one from the 1990's?

And why not let Durkin know that that graph they DID use was based on NW europe only. Whose weather (as we can attest in Blighty) is SIGNIFICANTLY affected by something called "the gulf stream". Ergo, NW europe isn't a very good proxy of the northern hemisphere as a whole.

Another quote from Durkin "look, the science doesn't really stack up. look at the evidence here". Yet he doesn't PUT the evidence. If he's talking correctly about the solar cycle, he decided NOT to put the evidence that the solar cycle doesn't match temperature.

>I wonder why, if (as Durkin avows is true) there are modern graphs that show that there has been no significant increase in global temperatures, why did he use one from the 1990's?

Indeed, and why did Plimer use Durkin's most tainted, error filled fabrication as his figure 3? Perhaps they are wanting to keep the really strong evidence to themselves?

From his childish attitude i assumed anthony watts was an early dropout weatherman just into his 20s.

I didnt expect a stout old Burgher like that.

> I didnt expect a stout old Burgher like that.

> Posted by: Marion Delgado

Did you spell that correctly???

;-)

Thanks, Tim!

From his childish attitude i assumed anthony watts was an early dropout weatherman just into his 20s.

If he were just into his 20s, he'd need to have at least a BS in Meteorology to be certified by the AMS, as I understand it.

As an old fart, he was able, years ago, to get a different certification (no longer issued) despite apparently having no university degree whatsoever.

thanks mab (#7 & 8) I shall watch once the test has finished probably.

OT but FYI: Deroy Murdock was just on The Tavis Smiley Show on PRI in full warming denial mode - to his credit, Tavis didn't concede anything to him. Check it out.

Note, to give credit where it's due: Peter Sinclair is the guy.

In my list of climate scientists and those making public claims about the subject, I've recently added in all the signers of an April 2007 letter to Channel Four from 37 scientists critiquing the Swindle film.
letter

I made a separate page combining the two groups - those who appeared in the film, and those who signed the letter critiquing it. The critics include some of the most highly cited scientists in climate research. Here's the links:

TGGWS list sorted by most citations

TGGWS list sorted by most articles matching "climate"

In my list of climate scientists and those making public claims about the subject, I've recently added in all the signers of an April 2007 letter to Channel Four from 37 scientists critiquing the Swindle film.
letter

I made a separate page combining the two groups - those who appeared in the film, and those who signed the letter critiquing it. The critics include some of the most highly cited scientists in climate research. Here's the links:

TGGWS list sorted by most citations

TGGWS list sorted by most articles matching "climate"

Not only did Durkin cut off the solar activity versus temperature graph 20 years too early, from my understanding, he also got the sun's activity wrong. In his piece, he had solar activity reaching a crest at 1940, but from what I understand, it crested in about 1960.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers_png

So as global temperatures dropped somewhat, solar activity was still increasing in the 1940s, providing further evidence of a poor correlation between solar and temperature in the last half of the 20th century.

4 Paul UK,

Watts has used the DMCA to force that video to be taken down.

This could be interesting if Greenman challenges it.

Thanks, Tim!

I'd prefer the climate to be warmer with Ice free summers at the poles so that we can go get em minerals. In 40-50 years when our resources get scarce, well want to start looking at Antarctica unless dredging the ocean is acceptable (Id rather we do Antarctica then the Moon and Asteroids. I like it warmer in any case. If if it is as easy as pumping up the CO2, than we can turn the Sahara and Arizona into Oasis's as that what it was like during the Eemain (the closest analog climate to what we think we are moving towards). Keep in mind that we are at the end of an interglacial period- Things are most likely to get rather cold over the next several thousand years despite higher CO2 levels. If you think that is bad and everyone should live frugally, than you should be the first to take up your straw shack because there is no way I'm even going to come close to that.

Are these denialists mad? open your eyes! Capitalist idiots, God is seriously kicking you up the ass!