In a great post from Celsias (linking to an Independent article) we can see that not only is Durkin taking serious flak but also that Channel 4 is distancing themselves from this programme.
C4 Distances Itself from Global Warming Documentary
Quoting from the Independent:
A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme’s credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.
The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.
Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial “lie” foisted on the public.
Channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme, referring this newspaper’s inquiries to a public relations consultant working on behalf of Wag TV, the production company behind the documentary.
The best quote of all comes from Durkin himself who is quoted as saying when asked why they did not use up-to-date Nasa data:
“The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find,” Mr Durkin said.
You could not make it up. What all of this goes to show is that my original post "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that commented on Monbiot's initial scepticism showed that he was spot on.
It is a shame that this programme has caused so much heat and generated so little light. The more important issue is to ask HOW did this programme ever get commissioned?
2 comments:
The Independant is an independent source of commentary? Please. It's a Socialist rag whose editorials are consistently in line with the alarmist GW crowd. One graph was mislabeled in the first airing, corrected in the second. Yawn. Believe what you like, this issue is more about politics, power, money and social engineering than it is about science. Follow the money - Generation Investments Management. Guess who holds a contolling interest in a carbon credit trading company?
Every time a denier says "follow the money" I laugh and laugh. It's a joke, right? The suggestion that the money at stake for scientists is at all significant compared to the money at stake for oil companies is whimsical indeed.
I love the dismissivness, too. "so the data they presented was deliberately mislabelled to make it look relevant when it's actually totally outdated. That's no big deal... everyone does that."
Are you interested in pursuing objective truth or are you too busy pushing against a perceived bias with blind resolve? You relativist.
Post a Comment