Saturday
Aug132011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Durkin blogs
Aug 13, 2011 Blogs Climate: Sceptics Martin Durkin, the director of the Great Global Warming Swindle, has joined the blogosphere.
Aug 13, 2011 Blogs Climate: Sceptics
Reader Comments (38)
Mmm... Perhaps... I'll glance back for episode #2...
Nicely done article - but it is just the tip of the ice-berg. For a long time I've been very sure that CAGW was an elitest gambit, but it is only one such. We've had an on-going economic crisis, but the economic elite prospers. You sometmes hear about an education crisis (remember, George Bush's intention was to become the "education president" before 9/11 sidetracked him) - but elite children go to private schools and generally do just fine.... you see, they are being trained in the liberal arts rather than in something "useful". The "immigration crisis", the "drug crisis", the "terrorism crisis"... through it all, the elite which, has ensconced itself in government bureaucracy, academia, the media and the corporate world, has prospered. The answer to every crisis is legislation, rules and restrictions which have always been the pet causes of some special interest group or other and now are, oh so presciently, the solution to our crisis-du-jour. I think it was Saul Alinsky who said "never let a good crisis go to waste"....
Well said, Robert, well said.
Good analysis.
I'm only saying that because he agrees with just about all my experience and everything I've said about the Green movement for decades!
It's just that he says it better.
Damn!
Mike, you said it before me!
Couldn't agree more - its the: 'Whatever you're doing - stop it' syndrome. Also of course, the political 'elite' - both in the UK and Europe - cannot BEAR a 'liberated' population - we must be controled and taxed - for our own good, naturally...
'Global warming' was the gift from the Gods for politicians and the Greens who seek (successfully) to influence them. All their Christmases had come at once - tax and control were not only good for us, there would be a global catastrophe if we did not curb our enthusiasm for mass consumerism and travel. 'The science is settled' - absolutely no point arguing or pointing out that reality did not accord with dodgy computer models - unless we urgently put in place draconian anti-industrial measures (The Climate Change Act to name the most loony) - the temperature of the earth would increase by more than 2 degrees C by the end of the century. Never mind that the proposed Carbon Tax in Australia would, over a decade, reduce the global temperature by one twentytwo millionth of a degree. Nope - it must be done. Forces industries to another location - but on the same planet..? Doesn't matter - the Australian government has done its bit...
I'm not usually that quick off the mark, Alexander. Right place, right time, I guess!
I've been battling against these guys locally for a quarter of a century, as I've said before. They are archetypal eco-luddites ... for everyone except the chosen few. I used to try to engage them in debate. You'd be surprised the effect on my blood pressure since I gave up that idea!
I'm sure his site will be a success. I tried to leave a comment there saying as much, but comments don't appear to be working. Anyone else tried?
Yes, my compliment was duly entered and recorded.
LC, I went back to Durkin's blog and checked. My comment has gone and the comment count is at 0.
Now I am puzzled!
Alexander, yes that's what happened to me. I have left him a message on his contact page, but that uses the same system as the comments, so I'm not sure it will get through. Have to wait and see what happens I suppose.
Yes, I left him a complimentary comment and it's gone as well.
I left compliments, too, and got this message:
"Your comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval."
So I guess he's just looking over the comments before publishing them.
It was Durkin's programme, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", back in March 2007, I think, that first alerted me to the other side of argument. Until then I had gone along passively with the media hype supposing it to be "true". It's been a very enjoyable learning curve ever since. Now, I take all media campaigns with a big pinch of salt, especially science ones.
I'm very grateful for the jolt that Martin's programme gave me.
Re:comments over at Martin Durkin's blog - I expect that the CiF mob will be being mini-bussed over to riot in the comments.... brave man.
Don't blame him in the slightest for initially putting everything into moderation. Maybe he's got a troll honeypot and back track set up. He's pretty high on the assassination list.
I think he'll make a new documentary called "Big Daft Climate Communication".
A greenie is someone who has never worried about the grocery bill.
I wrote to Ch 4 some time ago suggesting a follow-up program but never received a reply. Shame, because there is so much more science out there now than when he did the first episode.
Here's a reply.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
In the above short film by Peter Sinclair we learn that Martin Durkin fiddled the graphs on his programme. I thought that was the sort of thing BH readers loathed.
Hengist
You have to get smarter.
Your crock clip does not show any graph fiddling by Durkin. His 'NASA' graph looks the way it does because, NASA, made the changes to the graph. It is NASA that won't let past temperatures be. A trip or two to Steve Goddard's blog should cure your misconceptions. Nor is there any 'fiddling' in the Frils-Christiansen and Svensmark graph either.
A very good piece by Mr Durkin.
I did try to post without success so he may be pre-moderating?
Shub, give me the URL for the rebuttal you are referring to and I will look at it.
Watch from about 7:30 on the video, Sinclair alleges that the graph has been truncated in the 1980s when there is a divergence between solar activity and planetary temperature. The point isnt about past temperatures , it's about current warming not being represented on the graph because it is inconvenient.
That smart enough for you Shub?
It is the added red graph on that video that is fiddled. See how the original graph is in steps (because it's the length of each solar cycle). But the added-on graph is a smoother curve with a lot more wiggles. How did they do that?
The sun-climate correlation has been found in several papers, for example by C J Butler as well as the papers by Friis-Christensen.
"divergence between solar activity and planetary temperature"
Zero Lag Excuse again HMc?
Not in the same class as Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' with a circa 800 year divergence between Temperature rise and CO2 increase?
In the WRONG DIRECTION!!!
You'll be telling us next that Tiljander inversion via Mannomatics proves that MBP was vindicated or that the Glacial Himalayan 2035 state was peer-reviewed . Maybe I'll be proven wrong and you'll start bleating about how a computer model of wind-shear can explain away a 100k or so of radio-sonde measurements that said 'HOT-SPOT' - not found!
I'll cut you a bit of slack, however, the IPCC 'finding' that between diddly-nowt and 110% of future Energy needs can be met by renewables is spot on.
For sure, we may need to widen the term 'renewables' to include fossil and nuclear - I'm half-way with George Monbiot on this - but assuming that the term stays as narrow as it is just now, reverting back two centuries sounds cool as long as myself and fellow energy-bill defaultors get our 'Yuman' rights and are put into centrally-heated cells with three nourishing meals a day.
Hengist
Update:-
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/the_polar_bear_facts_nsd6N9ApKw8IQTwrVgPAGL
No it's OK Mcstone we got together some of the best people we could to find in our favour then got the taxpayer to fund our full investigation with expenses and we only asked Mr Durkin what he thought as we decided to use the CRU model of truth finding so our full and final clearing?? sorry finding will be out in about 1 million years give or take a few F.O.I's ,but lets be fair don't expect a hanging !
"A trip or two to Steve Goddard's blog should cure your misconceptions." (addressed to H McS)
It will take a lot more than that, Shub. You're still labouring under the misapprehension that you are dealing with a reasonable man*. Your blood-pressure isn't worth it.
*I assume. I can't imagine a woman that daft.
@PFM What is the relevance of the link to the New York Post ?
@Shub A reference to Steven Goddard's blog isn't enough. What is the URL , the actual webpage where i can find some refutation to Sinclair's work?
@JamesP If you know the URL of Goddard's refutation of Sinclair, wouldn't it be reasonable to disclose it to me?
@RoyFOMR Sorry you've lost me. Tried reading it twice, I realise it's addressed to me , but I don't figure it addresses anything I've said. All I'm looking for is the URL of Goddard's refutation of Sinclair.
Yep! Seems like Durkin and his Blog Comments whatyamacallit have "Gone Fishin". He really should have put a sign in the window so folks wouldn't waste their time. He's probably too busy to chat anywho.
There are 44 comments on his blog at the moment.
Now there's 77. Seems like he's back. Wonder if he caught any fish?
poor hengist...does it hurt to be so bereft of intellect?
Hengist,
You are right: Sinclair alleges something in his video. He provides the opinions of Steven Schneider to support his claims. You are citing Sinclair's video to support your claim.
And you want me to provide you with direct URLs and links and such?
You made the claim that Durkin's been fiddling with his graphs - i.e., take a graph that is presented in the literature, in one way, and make it look like something else. I've been trying to track down the Christiansen and Svensmark paper of 1990 and 2000. I've not had much luck.
Why don't you, instead of taking Sinclair at his word, pull out the papers directly, for us? That would support your original claim nicely, wouldn't it?
To the extent, I could see, Svensmark is being criticized for something he may not have done, in his paper. Otherwise, the articles I stumbled across would be contrasting the paper's original, with Durkin's stylized version. That is the conclusion I reached after my preliminary searching.
Hengist
let's take this slowly....
Who is Sinclair?
Has his video been peer-reviewed?
No his video has not been peer reviewed , neither has Durkin's work. It's worth watching though because it contains many challenges to Durkin's work, none of which have been rebutted here , and although Ive read the claim that Sinclair's work is rebutted on another blog, Ive yet to be shown it.
BTW Im not criticizing Svensmark and I dont see Sinclair is either. Sinclair's isnt the only adverse commentary, here's Medialens take.
I've read the MediaLens report, Hengist; more than once.
It's every bit as biased on the subject as you claim Durkin to be.
Unfortunately there are those (on both sides of the debate, worse luck) who have decided on their position on the subject and are not about to be influenced by anything as inconvenient as facts or argument.
I'm still open to persuasion (though less so by the day, I have to say) but I don't see anything persuasive coming from you. Just the usual negativity that trolls exude wherever they go.
Hengist
Your original claim is easily addressed. Did Durkin fiddle with the graph? Or did he present it just the way it was, in the paper(s)? All one has to do is grab a hold of the Svensmark papers. the 1991 one and the 2000 one.
The Sinclair dude is always getting ahead of himself. Let's forget about him.
The results of such a search notwithstanding, the Svensmark and Christiansen graph - of a close correspondence to solar over more than a century, is interesting by itself.
Ive posted a comment on the Yuo Tube site asking for some more info . But the question of which Friijs Christiansen and Svensmark paper is being used should be addressed to Durkin.
Shub, to me the jury is still out on your last statement because the Earth is warmed by the Sun so Friijs Christiansen and Svensmark's results (as presented in the film) are roughly what one would expect anyhow. Perhaps you could point me to something that would help me to revise that view .
One thing that strikes me about GGWS is it's lack of uncertainty caveats. Having made some considerable effort to follow the skeptic narrative over the last few months Ive observed how skeptics (rightly) pounce on any warmist claim that isnt sufficently fleshed out with uncertainty caveats. But a skeptic claim should admit uncertainties too, GGWS doesnt follow that example, a prime reason why it can be dismissed as propaganda.
Hengist
I'm inclined to agree with you!
But remember that GGWS was a polemic and a response to An Inconvenient Truth. As such I think to expect the same level of stating of uncertainties as you would expect from a scientific paper is a bit unreasonable. The aim of that programme as of AIT was to catch an audience and that means a simple message.
Sinclair has a problem with the graph; I think he's wrong. What worries me is that you seem to dive straight in and say "Sinclair disagrees with Durkin; therefore Durkin must have been wrong" which strikes me as a totally invalid argument especially since you are demanding such a high standard of proof from the rest of us.