I have a guest post over at Ellee Seymour's blog. Its an attempt at explaining TGGWS for more political type folks.
Meanwhile The Independent has an article on the faked graphs; sadly the online version hasn't got the pix.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
[Don't miss the 2nd birthday!]
About a year ago the entirety of the intertubes were rocked to their foundations by an announcement of epochal proportions: WUWT publishing suspended – major announcement coming. Or so we were told. Speculation was rife: had AW finally found those pix of Mann's…
So says The Vancouver Sun (thanks to DR). In principle it would be a good idea: show the two together, note where they disagree, and go off to find what the actual data says. Which would rapidly show up how TGGWS has faked is graphs (I wonder which version is on the DVD?). However... how likely is…
New Scientist's recent cover that heralded the stunning news (not) that "Darwin was wrong" has generated an enormous amount of antipathy in these parts. Bora's keeping notes, and the feature article's author, Graham Lawton, surely doesn't deserve the vitriol. (Although with the umbrage he takes in…
The egregious Soon has a paper, Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years which is a weasel-worded title if ever I saw one. But anyway: Soon is comparing the "Arctic" temperature record to the…
Adam: Attenborough did an excellent two parter "Are we changing Planet Earth?" It was broadcasted on CBC Newsworld as "The Truth About Global Warming". Small clips here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_5010000/news…
I would suspect that BBC's Horizon unit is already preparing a response. They always like to debunk any crap that C4 outputs.
It would be excellent to see a excellent scientific disciplines program do a "Fundamentals Of Environment Change" or even a edition of Spencer Weart's publication (or Mark Archer's or Houghton's or a mix).
William, thank you for the post, and it's helpful to see the graph too.
Well, I hope you're thoroughly ashamed of yourself, because according to Ch4 it's just not fair to point out when scientists are fudging their data.
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=debunking…
Interesting to note that besides the U-tube copies, Russell Seitz is now hosting a copy of this broadcast personally. I don't have the intestinal fortitude to go see which version he's providing.
It'll be interesting to see how this spreads. I'm afraid this is the future ---- video's most convincing to people who don't read for information.
I suppose those distributing copies have decided to violate the copyright law in a higher cause -- or was the program put into public domain?
Probably best to stick your fingers in your ears when Durkin hears about this - The Now Show 16/3/07 BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/nowshow.shtml
"video's most convincing to people who don't read for information."
It would be good to see a decent science programme do a "Fundamentals Of Climate Change" or even a version of Spencer Weart's book (or David Archer's or Houghton's or a mix). I know there's AIT, but something with climate scientist talking heads and proper graphs etc. would look very good. It might need to be a multi-parter which wouldn't help. I don't know if Horizon or Equinox (does that still exist?) would be up to the job.
I've watched maybe a dozen hours of TV in the past six months, so am not exactly up to speed, but I am sure that Equinox is gone, and there are few science based programs on TV. They'd rather do something about archeology.
The Indie graphs you mentioned:
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/9268/durkinfakegraphsym7.jpg