2 JUNE 2008
THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE
Here is my assessment of TGGWS
First: the programme itself is much improved. All the objections to the original programme have been cleaned up. Carl Wunsch, who claimed he was railroaded into contributing, has gone. There are several new people. I particularly liked the Japanese Professor from Alaska. It was interesting to see Bert Bolin for the first time, as he was the legendary originator of the greenhouse theory. Lord Lawson and Piers Corbyn were new. Nigel Calder had some additional reminiscences and the message was stronger. This version should replace the one already circulated whenever possible.
Then, to the discussion. In Australia they had a fanatically biased interviewer grilling poor Martin Durkin, who had difficulty standing up to him. Here, it was almost fair. Only two scientists to our one. But we won out on the non-scientists. Leighton Smith was the most experienced broadcaster present and he made most of the telling points. His best one was when he exposed the lie that very few scientists were critical of global warming theory. The two IPCC scientists ganged up to interrupt as soon as valid points were made, and the chairman had difficulty controlling them.
Willem de Lange did an excellent job, but it tested his knowledge several times.
David Wratt put over the same line that he did at the lecture last Wednesday and he honed in on the chief weakness of the Durkin programme, the reluctance to challenge the "Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record" which was accepted as authentic even by Fred Singer. While Durkin was accused of "cherry-picking", the MGSTAR is consistently chosen by the IPCC as the only authentic temperature guide, and all others are carefully downgraded. For example, Manning quoted the IPCC about "the warming of the last fifty years", carefully chosen to eliminate the satellite and weather balloon records which do not quite make it, but omitting to mention that there was cooling for the first half of the period. When the USA was mentioned somebody should have said that the corrected temperature record for the USA shows no warming.
Wratt even dragged out the Son of Hockey Stick which, again depends on their cherry-picked MGSTAR. Willem made a good point in saying that they stop the "proxy" measurements as soon as they do not agree with the surface readings.
It is unfortunate that Pat Michaels, in the TGGWS did not mention his part in the paper with Ross McKitrick, 2007 which shows that the MGSTAR is biased by "socioeconomic factors". This paper is published in the peer-reviewed prestigious Journal of Geophysics Research.
Wratt makes great play with how the IPCC only deals with peer-reviewed publications, unless, of course, if it is a Journal they do not approve of, like Energy and Environment. He does not mention that the IPCC controls the editors and the peer-reviewers of most of the Journals,
Insufficient play was made of the point made in TGGWS that everything written by the IPCC has to be approved by the Government representatives. With the "Summary for Policymakers", they have to approve each line. David Wratt is a "Drafting Author" taking down dictation. They like to pretend they are independent of the politicians and they are not.
Cindy Baxter was a disaster for her supporters. She obviously did not understand a word of the film or what the others were talking about and she made a feeble attempt to accuse us all of being paid off by big oil. The reality is she is paid how to think by Greenpeace headquarters.
Martin Manning has aged considerably from when I first knew him. He looks like a possible suitable candidate for the role of Count Dracula and did not come over as very convincing.
I find it difficult to believe that anybody who witnessed the programme could possibly still believe that the science behind the global warming theory is settled. I wonder how many watched, anyway?
Next Post
Previous Post