FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Debate

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Debate

(8:44) Debate on Australian TV over Mark Durkin's polemic documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' that had scientists up in arms over some of the claims spouted in their name. The documentary aired on Channel 4 in 2007. Debate begins with an interview with director Mark Durkin.
Part 2 on YouTube - Full documentary on YouTube

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Richard S (2033 days ago)
It is clear to me that this is a big swindle of a hoax this global warning debate nonsense. The tides come in, the tides go down etc. We should not believe these self-appointed guardian angel "scientists" who tell me that it's hot. I have never needed anyone to tell me. For instance, it was warmer today than it twas yesteryear: so what!? Big deal lab-coat draper superhero, you're stale lily garment is readily become apparent and you will not feed your family with on your nelly!
ReplyVote up (139)down (89)
Original comment
It is clear to me that this is a big swindle of a hoax this global warning debate nonsense. The tides come in, the tides go down etc. We should not believe these self-appointed guardian angel "scientists" who tell me that it's hot. I have never needed anyone to tell me. For instance, it was warmer today than it twas yesteryear: so what!? Big deal lab-coat draper superhero, you're stale lily garment is readily become apparent and you will not feed your family with on your nelly!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guesty111 (2035 days ago)
If these graphs have been superseded, several times, then this proves that the people accumulating the data have got it wrong, so many times, in the past. Why should we trust them now? -Now, they have a NEW reason to "TAX" people. Western governments have shown to be very inventive at finding new ways to tax people and inflation (which is a tax), just doesn't cut the ice any more! Wake up people - Science has long been high-jacked by governments to prove what is in their best interests. You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time - but not all the people all the time! Looks like it is 'time up'!
ReplyVote up (101)down (82)
Original comment
If these graphs have been superseded, several times, then this proves that the people accumulating the data have got it wrong, so many times, in the past. Why should we trust them now? -Now, they have a NEW reason to "TAX" people. Western governments have shown to be very inventive at finding new ways to tax people and inflation (which is a tax), just doesn't cut the ice any more! Wake up people - Science has long been high-jacked by governments to prove what is in their best interests. You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time - but not all the people all the time! Looks like it is 'time up'!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2035 days ago)
Graphs are not superseded because they are wrong, they are updated with the latest data. That's how science works.
ReplyVote up (66)down (129)
Original comment
Graphs are not superseded because they are wrong, they are updated with the latest data. That's how science works.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2033 days ago)
Sort of true except his claim is that the newest graphs cut off the medieval warm period so it only shows the rise from the little ice age to what it is now and that is more alarming than if you saw the whole graph.
ReplyVote up (101)down (71)
Original comment
Sort of true except his claim is that the newest graphs cut off the medieval warm period so it only shows the rise from the little ice age to what it is now and that is more alarming than if you saw the whole graph.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (2033 days ago)
What I find amusing is how Durkin is completely willing to believe measurements and estimates from the medieval warm period and the little ice age more than 800 and 400 years ago, but unwilling to accept measurements over the past 30 years from the most precise and accurate instruments ever developed. There wasn't even such a thing as a scaled thermometer before 1600.
Original comment
What I find amusing is how Durkin is completely willing to believe measurements and estimates from the medieval warm period and the little ice age more than 800 and 400 years ago, but unwilling to accept measurements over the past 30 years from the most precise and accurate instruments ever developed. There wasn't even such a thing as a scaled thermometer before 1600.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (2033 days ago)
I agree it's strange he didn't trust the latest information but I really believe the true issue is in which chart he used. He could have picked from 4 different versions and the one he picked is the one that showed the Medieval Warm Period. The others excluded that. He did not use raw data and make his own chart and that's where the controversial issue begins. Anyway, if you look at the data, the lowest temperature is shown at -0.6 and the highest (with the added data) is 0.6. That's a 1.2 degree difference from the coldest period to the hottest period (today) in a 1000 year span. Is that 1.2 degrees really significant? That's the big question.
ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment
I agree it's strange he didn't trust the latest information but I really believe the true issue is in which chart he used. He could have picked from 4 different versions and the one he picked is the one that showed the Medieval Warm Period. The others excluded that. He did not use raw data and make his own chart and that's where the controversial issue begins. Anyway, if you look at the data, the lowest temperature is shown at -0.6 and the highest (with the added data) is 0.6. That's a 1.2 degree difference from the coldest period to the hottest period (today) in a 1000 year span. Is that 1.2 degrees really significant? That's the big question.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (2033 days ago)
Good question. From a statistical standpoint, it is 'significant', i.e., showing a reliable difference that is 95% likely not caused by chance alone. Is it meaningful? That is another question, as is 'was it caused by people'. My thinking is though, if I were in a submarine at sea, and it was on fire, or even just looked like it might be on fire, I would not be asking who caused the fire, or even casting doubt on the existence of the fire: I would be doing my best to put the fire out, and making sure that no fires even had any reason to start. I would also be very suspicious of anyone selling toasted marshmallows.
Original comment
Good question. From a statistical standpoint, it is 'significant', i.e., showing a reliable difference that is 95% likely not caused by chance alone. Is it meaningful? That is another question, as is 'was it caused by people'. My thinking is though, if I were in a submarine at sea, and it was on fire, or even just looked like it might be on fire, I would not be asking who caused the fire, or even casting doubt on the existence of the fire: I would be doing my best to put the fire out, and making sure that no fires even had any reason to start. I would also be very suspicious of anyone selling toasted marshmallows.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: hammer (2030 days ago)
Latest comment: To reply to dananddiana. It would be easy to correct for this. The temperature has risen significantly over the entire planet. You don't just take a simple average.
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
Latest comment: To reply to dananddiana. It would be easy to correct for this. The temperature has risen significantly over the entire planet. You don't just take a simple average.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: rossglory (2035 days ago)
Durkin had links to a very strange political cult, the Revolutionary Communist Party. This is where the bulk of his ideology originates I suspect. He is not a scientist and is apparently not interested in scientific documentaries. His programme is a polemic, pure and simple.
Original comment
Durkin had links to a very strange political cult, the Revolutionary Communist Party. This is where the bulk of his ideology originates I suspect. He is not a scientist and is apparently not interested in scientific documentaries. His programme is a polemic, pure and simple.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
AstroBoy AstroBoy (2033 days ago)
Durkin knows he produced a nonsense documentary - you can see it in his body language.
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
Durkin knows he produced a nonsense documentary - you can see it in his body language.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (2033 days ago)
The reason why he didn't include the most recent information was because Russia had closed a number of temperature reading stations. These were cold area stations. By not having that data it stands to reason that the overall temperature readings would be warmer. He tries to explain that but gets cut off. If any of you take the time to watch "The Great Global warming Swindle" and "Not Evil just Wrong" with an open mind, You will see what he is talking about and if it doesn't make you question what our governments are feeding us about global warming..... I will be surprised!
ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment
The reason why he didn't include the most recent information was because Russia had closed a number of temperature reading stations. These were cold area stations. By not having that data it stands to reason that the overall temperature readings would be warmer. He tries to explain that but gets cut off. If any of you take the time to watch "The Great Global warming Swindle" and "Not Evil just Wrong" with an open mind, You will see what he is talking about and if it doesn't make you question what our governments are feeding us about global warming..... I will be surprised!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Mark Blyth - Sweden's most popular government department
Mark Blyth - Sweden's most popular government department
Katherine Ryan sympathises with Melania Trump
Katherine Ryan sympathises with Melania Trump
Neil deGrasse Tyson - What's hiding under Europa's ice?
Neil deGrasse Tyson - What's hiding under Europa's ice?
Crossing over at the Boston Marathon
Crossing over at the Boston Marathon
Yanis Varoufakis and Noam Chomsky discuss neoliberalism
Yanis Varoufakis and Noam Chomsky discuss neoliberalism