[njp]

This makes quite entertaining viewing.

The version of The Great Global Warming Swindle shown by ABC in Australia was edited to remove some of the fakery in the version shown here, and you can watch Durkin squirm about that about 5 minutes into part 2 of the interview.

One of the few credible contributors to the original programme was the oceanographer Carl Wunsch, although what he said in an interview was cut together with statements from less credible people to make it look as though he supported what they were saying. All his material has now been removed from the latest version of the film. As the interviewer says: "With four versions out, you could make the case that the documentary is more changeable than the weather".

Originally Posted by njp

This makes quite entertaining viewing.

The version of The Great Global Warming Swindle shown by ABC in Australia was edited to remove some of the fakery in the version shown here, and you can watch Durkin squirm about that about 5 minutes into part 2 of the interview.

One of the few credible contributors to the original programme was the oceanographer Carl Wunsch, although what he said in an interview was cut together with statements from less credible people to make it look as though he supported what they were saying. All his material has now been removed from the latest version of the film. As the interviewer says: "With four versions out, you could make the case that the documentary is more changeable than the weather".

Durkin has previously claimed that he did not misrepresent Wunsch's views, despite Wunsch's complaints to the contrary. I wonder if legal action had been threatened prior to this version being shown?

On another tack, here's a thought I've had for a while (partly inspired by Marcus Brigstocke's sketch about TGGWS on 'The Now Show'): what if 'durkin' became a noun, much like 'quisling' has (with a different meaning of course)?
durkin noun
One who misrepresents and distorts evidence in order to discredit others, a liar or fraudster.

[Corey USA]

Ouch this is going to be a problem for the average to under average layman, who does not have time to do there own research into the issue due to there own busy hectic lifestyles. Thus they will follow the wrong set of info and go on as business as usual. Then wonder why down the road it it so bloody hot and all the plants dieing off Due to the plant temperature and water hardiness index changing as a result to global climat change and feedback loops being triggered.

[damo_in_sale]

We only got to hear from one of the panel of experts. Was there anyone on there who agreed with Durkin?

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

We only got to hear from one of the panel of experts. Was there anyone on there who agreed with Durkin?

I'd love to see the whole thing. I wonder if it's made it to other places like the torrent sites?

[njp]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

We only got to hear from one of the panel of experts. Was there anyone on there who agreed with Durkin?

Yes, several - including Bob Carter. He certainly agrees with Durkin, although quite what he's an expert in is open to debate (his field is geology). The full panel for the debate can be found here.

The debate can be found on YouTube, in rather inconvenient pieces. I watched a chunk of it the other day. There are some truly deranged individuals in the audience, let alone on the panel!

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by njp

Yes, several - including Bob Carter. He certainly agrees with Durkin, although quite what he's an expert in is open to debate (his field is geology). The full panel for the debate can be found here.

The debate can be found on YouTube, in rather inconvenient pieces. I watched a chunk of it the other day. There are some truly deranged individuals in the audience, let alone on the panel!

I'd personally feel better if you could post a link to the full program, if possible. You wouldn't want to be accused of having BBC like standards of selective editing mate

Originally Posted by njp

Yes, several - including Bob Carter. He certainly agrees with Durkin, although quite what he's an expert in is open to debate (his field is geology). The full panel for the debate can be found here.

The debate can be found on YouTube, in rather inconvenient pieces. I watched a chunk of it the other day. There are some truly deranged individuals in the audience, let alone on the panel!

Most stuff like this appears as complete torrents fairly quickly, but I couldn't find any. I found http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...&search=Search
which is 9 chunks (low quality stream of course).

Originally Posted by nikyzf

Most stuff like this appears as complete torrents fairly quickly, but I couldn't find any. I found http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...&search=Search
which is 9 chunks (low quality stream of course).

I've now watched all of those pieces (2 of them cover the interview already posted) and I thought it was quite well done. It is a shame that C4 did not do something similar (they promised us a follow-up to TGGWS but there is still no sign of it).

Watch out for the character going on about Kepler. Wacko!

Originally Posted by nikyzf

I've now watched all of those pieces (2 of them cover the interview already posted) and I thought it was quite well done. It is a shame that C4 did not do something similar (they promised us a follow-up to TGGWS but there is still no sign of it).

Watch out for the character going on about Kepler. Wacko!

Here's the whole thing as a single torrent
http://www.mininova.org/tor/791737

[njp]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

Watch out for the character going on about Kepler. Wacko!

Yes, he was in the bit I watched. Very odd.

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

Watch out for the character going on about Kepler. Wacko!

Watched it too. Seemed quite well balanced. Unfortunately the panel were not on the ball with the guy going on about carbon 14 in coal. I think that he was implying that the origins of coal are in dispute - a well known alternative theory. As for the guy ranting about Kepler, he might have been trying to put across the point that Kepler based his mathematical "laws" based on observations rather than astrological predictions which were in vogue at the time. Who knows. However I agree that the Durkin programme should have been followed up in the UK.

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by njp

This makes quite entertaining viewing.

The version of The Great Global Warming Swindle shown by ABC in Australia was edited to remove some of the fakery in the version shown here, and you can watch Durkin squirm about that about 5 minutes into part 2 of the interview.

One of the few credible contributors to the original programme was the oceanographer Carl Wunsch, although what he said in an interview was cut together with statements from less credible people to make it look as though he supported what they were saying. All his material has now been removed from the latest version of the film. As the interviewer says: "With four versions out, you could make the case that the documentary is more changeable than the weather".

Which ever way you want to cut it Durkin now has widespread support in Australia:

theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22105154-30417,00.html

[Stephen Wilde]

Interesting video and Durkin did get flustered from time to time but I did note heavy editing as though his comments were truncated in some way.

After all he is an amateur on TV whereas the presenter was a highly experienced media professional with full control of the production and editing processes.

The main flaw in the show was that the presenter clearly had a fixed agenda and was not seeking truth merely the debunking of someone with a differing opinion. Many viewers would have sympathised with Durkin so the show presents something of an own goal for the warmists.

Durkin seemed at his weakest when he adopted warmist tactics by being unnecessarily economical with certain aspects. He should have known there is one rule for them and another for those who have the impudence to disagree.

I think viewers are nowadays well capable of knowing when there has been a media attempt at a mob lynching such as this was.

Durkin makes many good points which are not all discredited just because he makes weak points as well.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Interesting video and Durkin did get flustered from time to time but I did note heavy editing as though his comments were truncated in some way.

After all he is an amateur on TV whereas the presenter was a highly experienced media professional with full control of the production and editing processes.

Are you suggesting the production process was a bit like the one that created Durkin's "documentary"? That would certainly be shocking. Interesting that you don't regard Durkin as a media professional.

Durkin makes many good points which are not all discredited just because he makes weak points as well.

Name one.

[njp]

Originally Posted by blearyeyes

Which ever way you want to cut it Durkin now has widespread support in Australia:

theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22105154-30417,00.html

I notice that the cretin just can't stop lying - it must be in his blood. It does seem quite likely that he has received plenty of messages of support from people as stupid as he is, but on the other hand he may just have invented them!

Here he goes again, in his most recent pack of lies:

Originally Posted by Durkin (lie no 1)

After a year of arguing with people about this, I am convinced that it's because global warming is first and foremost a political theory

This is obviously a view informed by Durkin's Marxist agenda. He think's it's a middle class plot. It also shows (as if we needed proof!) that he hasn't even attempted to engage with the science.

Originally Posted by Durkin (lie no 2)

To the utter dismay of the global warming lobby, the world does not appear to be getting warmer. According to their own figures (from the UN-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the temperature has been static or slightly declining since 1998. The satellite data confirms this.

That's just crap, of course. 1998 had the most powerful tropical El Niño of the century, so cherry-picking it in an attempt to show a declining or static temperature trend in the years following is intellectually dishonest (and therefore entirely to be expected of Durkin). The smoothed trend in temperature continues upwards, with 11 of the last 12 years ranking amongst the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record. 2005 was as hot as, if not hotter than 1998, without benefit of a tropical El Niño.

Originally Posted by Durkin (lie no 3)

Then there's the ice-core data, the jewel in the crown of global warming theory. It shows there's a connection between carbon dioxide and temperature: see Al Gore's movie. But what Gore forgets to mention is that the connection is the wrong way around; temperature leads, CO2 follows.

It's not "the wrong way round". It's just the way round that every credible scientist expects to find it.

Originally Posted by Durkin (lie no 4)

In a humiliating climb down, the IPCC has had to drop the hockey stick from its reports, though it can still be seen in Gore's movie.

On the contrary, Mann's original hockey stick remains in the paleoclimate section of the IPCC 4th assessment (no surprises that Durkin didn't look), along with a further 11 reconstructions from different teams using different methods, all of them producing remarkably similar results. Obviously that's still not enough hockey sticks to beat any sense into Durkin's thick head, but I live in hope.

Originally Posted by Durkin (lie no 5)

And finally, there are those pesky satellites. If greenhouse gases were the cause of warming, then the rate of warming should have been greater, higher up in the Earth's atmosphere (the bit known as the troposphere). But all the satellite and balloon data says the exact opposite. In other words, the best observational data we have flatly contradicts the whole bally idea of man-made climate change.

The troposphere does indeed warm faster than the surface, and the data confirms this. Saying otherwise is just a bare-faced lie.

[bjd]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

Watch out for the character going on about Kepler. Wacko!

Perhaps what he was referring to, without really understanding it, was Kepler's attempts to explain the ratio of the orbital diameters of the then six known planets using a sphere and the five Platonic solids. He actually managed to produce a fairly good model this way, and even went on to attempt to explain orbital speed by claiming that each planet "sang" a particular note due to its speed, producing a six-part Harmony Of The Spheres, another idea he borrowed from early Greeks such as Pythagoras.
Kepler, despite these attempts to maintain links with classical ideas, was compelled to abandon them, not least because Galileo discovered four moons orbiting Jupiter which Kepler could not incorporate into his theory. After spending several years analysing data which he had stolen from Tycho Brahe, (he had, it seems gone to work for Brahe with this intent), and adopting Copernicus' heliocentric model, he eventually formulated the laws for which he is now famous.

Quite what any of this has to do with the science of Climate Change is unclear to me.

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by njp

I notice that the cretin just can't stop lying - it must be in his blood. It does seem quite likely that he has received plenty of messages of support from people as stupid as he is, but on the other hand he may just have invented them!

Seems like you have it in for Durkin then!

Originally Posted by blearyeyes

Seems like you have it in for Durkin then!

Anyone who cares about honesty and truth should "have it in for" Durkin. He's a shameless liar many times over.

durkin
noun
One who misrepresents evidence in an attempt to discredit others, esp. in science; a liar; a fraudster.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

Anyone who cares about honesty and truth should "have it in for" Durkin. He's a shameless liar many times over.

durkin
noun
One who misrepresents evidence in an attempt to discredit others, esp. in science; a liar; a fraudster.

You are aware that the libel laws extend to the net, aren't you.

[njp]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

You are aware that the libel laws extend to the net, aren't you.

Truth is an absolute defence. Durkin can very easily be shown to be lying, simply by opening the IPCC report - an epic feat of research which apparently eluded him.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by njp

Truth is an absolute defence. Durkin can very easily be shown to be lying, simply by opening the IPCC report - an epic feat of research which apparently eluded him.

And what about 'fraudster'? That is very serious language. I personally think that the mods should take action here, for the sake of the forums.

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

And what about 'fraudster'? That is very serious language. I personally think that the mods should take action here, for the sake of the forums.

I would have to check the strict legal definition, but I don't see that "fraudster" is any worse than "liar" or any less applicable.

Fraud
# intentional deception resulting in injury to another person
# imposter: a person who makes deceitful pretenses
# something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

I would have to check the strict legal definition, but I don't see that "fraudster" is any worse than "liar" or any less applicable.

Fraud
# intentional deception resulting in injury to another person
# imposter: a person who makes deceitful pretenses
# something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I was also going to object to the term 'liar' as well. It is all well and good to say that somebody is wrong, but to call them a liar is quite different.

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

I was also going to object to the term 'liar' as well. It is all well and good to say that somebody is wrong, but to call them a liar is quite different.

Anyone is entitled to be "wrong", although I would argue that anyone making a "documentary" on any subject has a duty to check his facts much more thoroughly than the average person.

Anyone who knowingly makes false claims, edits contributions to misrepresent a contributor's views, and uses doctored graphs is a "liar" in my book.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

Anyone is entitled to be "wrong", although I would argue that anyone making a "documentary" on any subject has a duty to check his facts much more thoroughly than the average person.

Anyone who knowingly makes false claims, edits contributions to misrepresent a contributor's views, and uses doctored graphs is a "liar" in my book.

To call a person a 'liar' and a 'fraudster', especially regarding their working life, is very dangerous. You can say, I think, that that is what you believe, but to just state that a person is a liar and a fraudster is dangerous.

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

To call a person a 'liar' and a 'fraudster', especially regarding their working life, is very dangerous. You can say, I think, that that is what you believe, but to just state that a person is a liar and a fraudster is dangerous.

This is a joke, isn't it?

Anyone with access to publicly available material can show that he is both of those.

Perhaps he should know that to call other people (thousands of real scientists) liars, especially regarding their working lives, is very dangerous. He has done this in other cases, and I can only assume he has got away with it because he accuses scientists in general (the consensus) and does not accuse named individuals.

Originally Posted by nikyzf

This is a joke, isn't it?

Anyone with access to publicly available material can show that he is both of those.

Perhaps he should know that to call other people (thousands of real scientists) liars, especially regarding their working lives, is very dangerous. He has done this in other cases, and I can only assume he has got away with it because he accuses scientists in general (the consensus) and does not accuse named individuals.

Oh, BTW, NJP called him a "cretin". I think that he is clearly not that: he knows what he is doing and how far he can go. He knows how to get the support of people who know little about a subject other than their own prejudices and what "the bloke down the pub" told them.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

To call a person a 'liar' and a 'fraudster', especially regarding their working life, is very dangerous. You can say, I think, that that is what you believe, but to just state that a person is a liar and a fraudster is dangerous.

It's not dangerous at all! He's a lying fraudster. A great big fat liar, of monumental proportions. He is making an absolute packet and gaining huge notoriety in cynically deceiving millions people who know no better, to feather his own nest. By all definitions, Durkin is a collosal fraudster, and should be imprisoned. And I will thoroughly enjoy standing up in court to defend myself, should the liar himself wish to pursue my "allegedly" libelous accusations. The lying fraudulent deceiver!

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

Anyone is entitled to be "wrong", although I would argue that anyone making a "documentary" on any subject has a duty to check his facts much more thoroughly than the average person.

Anyone who knowingly makes false claims, edits contributions to misrepresent a contributor's views, and uses doctored graphs is a "liar" in my book.

Does this extend to the thoroughly discredited Mr Hansen of NASA and Herr Gorebbols then?
And as for claims that Wunsch was misquoted:

www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6139