The Great Global warming Swindle - why is anyone giving Martin Durkin the time of day?

Question

This programme was made by Martin Durkin. He says himself on the website Prison Planet he wanted to call it 'Apocalypse my ****', but he thought the title he chose would be 'better for ratings'. This is the same man who in 1997 made a series called 'Against Nature', in which he blamed envioronmentalists for the deprivation and deaths of millions in the Third World. Channel 4 had to broadcast a prime-time apology and the Independent Television Commission chastisied Durkin for using 'underhanded editing techniques, distorting and misrepresenting the known views of those interviewed and for misleading those who took part as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programmes'. He went on to make a programme where GM proponants like CS Prakash played a starring role. (see Getting your science from charlatans). Whilst I'll always defend free speech, you have to be aware of this kind of agenda and manipulitive method. Did he swindle you into believing him?

It has since emerged that the Professor of oceanography from MIT, Professor Carl Wunsch, claims that he has been misprepresented in the programme and is considering making an offical complaint.

It has also been revealed that the programme makers used old data. They could have gone to the Nasa website and got the most up-to-date data, but it would have undermined their argument. They also 'adapted' data. 'The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find.' Mr Durkin has said in his defence.

Looks like he's been up to his old tricks.

It is true that sunspot activity can affect temperatures here on earth, but up-to- date data shows that in the last 30 years temperatures have risen while sunspot activity has not, a fact disguised in the film.

Answer 1

No, Durkin certainly didn't swindle me. The man is either a complete moron, or he has a very sinister agenda of his own.

This so called documentary (it seemed more like a science fiction show to me), was basically rubbishing very careful and thorough research into the human contribution to global warming that has been carried out over the past 30 - 40 years. It was contradicting the views of the vast majority of climate scientists, as well respected figures in the scientific community like Stephen Hawking and Sir David Attenborough.

For those who believe that this issue has somehow been cooked up by the political left or anti-capitalists (which would be very odd to say the least since it doesn't further their agendas in the slightest), its only just recently that the politicians have realised how important the issue is, and many in the scientific community believe they have begun to address the issue far too late.

Also, I often see comments on this site from people who think that the whole climate change issue started with Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth". Well I have to tell you that I first heard about the human contribution to global warming in the early 1970s. The man proposing that something should be done about it then, was Sir Peter Scott (famous naturalist and son of Robert Falcon Scott the Antarctic explorer). Far from being a left wing anti-capitalist, Sir Peter Scott actually stood for election as a Conservative candidate.

Personally I would rather believe the likes of Scott, Hawking and Attenborough than a man of dubious integrity like Martin Durkin.

Answer 2

I missed the programme unfortunately. I have seen some of the evidence it presented since, however, and I have to say that I was beginning to change my mind about the human effect on climate change.

I did not realise that this programme had been made by Martin Durkin, however. I do remember seeing his "Against Nature" series though, and that was a load of claptrap. I now feel I want to see this programme before I make my mind up one way or the other (I assume it will be repeated at some point - on More 4 perhaps), but I must say that after reading your comments above, Heralda, I will be watching it with some scepticism. So thank you for bringing this to my attention.

If it is actually as misleading as his previous programmes, I hope channel 4 will have the good grace to issue another apology.

Answer 3

I’m giving him the time of day, because he makes some very good points.

Your added details suggest that we should ignore Durkin, because he used underhand techniques. I hope you would agree, therefore, that we should ignore anyone else who also uses such underhand techniques? Yes?

So, if someone produced a graph based on climate data, using a computer climate model that produced very similar graphs even if you put random data into it, would you agree that they had mislead the public?

I’ll assume the answer is yes.

The graph in question? The IPCC’s infamous “hockey-stick” graph, that was reproduced in the IPCC’s 2001 report in full colour, no less than 6 times (the only graphic that was reproduced that many times).

You can read all about how dodgy the graph was here… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=DOIAMIJT5FMY3QFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0

If you read nothing else in that link, please at least look at the graphic on page 9. It shows 8 results of running the climate model used by the IPCC. 7 use random data, 1 uses the ‘real’ climate data. I defy anyone to be able to tell the ‘real’ one from the rubbish.

So, since this proves that the IPCC themselves have used underhand techniques to mislead everyone (and there are many other examples), I trust you will join me in dismissing their blatant attempts to swindle us into believing them?

So, where does this leave us?

It leaves us still waiting for some decent, verifiable, undisputed science, which will allow us to make genuinely informed decisions about what action we should take, if any, regarding global warming. Until we get such decent science, I believe it would be insane to spend billions of pounds on action that could well make things worse. Never forget, those billions could be spent on the Health Service, something that *definitely* would benefit us (here in the UK, at least.)

Answer 4

Didn't see the programme, but not too sure if everythings our fault, after all the earth has heated up and cooled down before. I find it very hard to believe a word this government says.

Answer 5

I thought the programme was a real shame. Environmentalists have been working for many years to try & ease the burden on the environment for all our sakes, then along comes this trumped-up bloke spouting forth the claim they only are only doing it for the money!
The view re: solar energy in Africa also annoyed me considerably- saying that it is not economic or viable!!
What uninformed, biased claptrap!!
Does he get commission for every road laid or nuclear power station built? Is he a consultant for the present power brokers, or what?

Answer 6

No he didn't. I did watch the programme and there was very little scientific evidence to back it up. The vast majority of it was concentrated on bashing the green movement.

Answer 7

Listen to the scientists for christ sake. The evidence was there in front of your eyes. The politicians are brainwashing us in to paying more and more just for being able to live. If you're happy paying a green tax that's fine, tell you what if your that happy about it you can pay mine too!

Answer 8

I'm sorry, but I think that it's you who has been indoctrinated by the 'left'.

Anti-Capitalism, wearing a green coat.

Answer 9

nope dont think so.

Answer 10

which program are you referring too. ??