Skip to comments.C4ís debate on global warming boils over
Posted on 03/21/2007 7:56:56 AM PDT by cogitator
Two eminent British scientists who questioned the accuracy of a Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming was an unfounded conspiracy theory have received an expletive-filled tirade from the programme maker.
In an e-mail exchange leaked to The Times, Martin Durkin, the executive producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, responded to the concerns of Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, and Simon Singh, the respected scientific author, by telling them to go and f*** yourself.
The tirade has caused Dr Leroi to withdraw his cooperation from another Channel 4 project with Mr Durkin on race, The Times has learnt.
The programme, broadcast by Channel 4 last Thursday, featured a number of scientists who disputed the consensus on the causes of global warming.
Dr Leroi was particularly concerned about a segment that featured a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures, which was based on a 1991 paper in the journal Science by Eigil Friis-Chris-tensen. He was surprised that the programme failed to mention that while these findings look convincing superficially, they have been revealed as flawed by subsequent research by Peter Laut.
Dr Leroi e-mailed Mr Durkin about his use of data, concluding: To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were . . . wrong in several different ways. He copied Mr Singh into the exchange.
Mr Durkin replied to both later that morning, saying: Youre a big daft cock. Less than an hour later, Mr Singh, who has worked for the BBC, intervened to urge Mr Durkin to engage in serious debate. He wrote: I suspect that you will have upset many people (if Armand is right), so it would be great if you could engage in the debate rather than just resorting to one-line replies. That way we could figure out what went wrong/ right and how do things better/ even better in the future. Mr Durkin replied nine minutes later: The BBC is now a force for bigotry and intolerance . . . Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing.
Why have we not heard this in the hours and hours of sh*t [edited by poster] programming on global warming shoved down our throats by the BBC?
Never mind an irresponsible bit of film-making. Go and f*** yourself.
Last night Dr Leroi said that he was amazed at the rudeness of Mr Durkins reply.
It was rather a shocking response, Dr Leroi said. It was my intention to make a film with Martin Durkin and [the production company] Wag, but that is something I am seriously reconsidering now. I am no climate scientist, but I was very concerned at the way that flaws in these data were brushed over.
He said that the global warming film had glossed over flaws in data that it used to make its case, and that it was critical that a documentary about a subject as controversial as race and biology did not make similar mistakes.
As the subject of our proposed film was race, it is such a sensitive topic that it requires great care and great balance. That he has shown so little respect for scientific consensus and such little nuance is a cause for great concern. I cannot imagine it will go ahead now.
The film would have addressed Dr Lerois thesis that race is a biologically meaning-ful and medically valuable concept, a view that is highly controversial among scientists.
Last night Mr Durkin apologised for his langauge. As far as I was concerned these were private e-mails. They arrived when I was quite tired having just finished the programme in time for transmission, he said.
Needless, to say, I regret the use of intemperate language. It is so unlike me. I am very eager to have all the science properly debated with scientists qualified in the right areas and have asked Channel 4 if they will stage a live debate on this subject.
Where Channel 4 got it wrong over climate change
Claim: Ice core data shows that carbon dioxide levels rise after temperatures go up, not before
Fact: This is correct, but climate scientists have a good explanation. There is a substantial feedback effect initial small rises in temperature lead to substantial release of carbon dioxide from natural reservoirs in the oceans, which then produce much steeper warming later on
Claim: Temperatures in the troposphere, the lower part of the atmosphere, have not risen as predicted by the models
Fact: This was once the case, but it has been resolved now that initial measurement errors have been corrected
Claim: Temperatures rose for the first part of the century, then cooled for three decades before warming again. There is no link to carbon dioxide
Fact: Temperatures did follow this pattern, but again there is a good explanation. The mid-century effect fall came about chiefly because of sulphate aerosols particles that have a cooling effect on the atmosphere. These are no longer produced so heavily by industry because of environmental regulations to combat other problems, such as acid rain
Thanks! That helps. That last thing I want to do is to be repeating bad information.
Please change the title as it is incorrect - the global warming programme in question has nothing to do with the BBC and was made for Channel 4 which an independent advertising funded UK terrestrial channel.
It was however, an excellent programme!
Fact: This is correct, but climate scientists have a good explanation. There is a substantial feedback effect initial small rises in temperature lead to substantial release of carbon dioxide from natural reservoirs in the oceans, which then produce much steeper warming later on.
This implies an unstable system. Positive feedback will result in never-ending increases in temperatures unless some other unknown process stops and reverses it.
Since this has never happened in the past the explanation appears bogus.
"....but again there is a good explanation"
Har! The global warming swindlers have an explanation for everything that doesn't fit their agenda. Those three examples at the end of this article were funnier than any Saturday Night Live skit!
"Fact: This is correct, but climate scientists have a good explanation. There is a substantial feedback effect initial small rises in temperature lead to substantial release of carbon dioxide from natural reservoirs in the oceans, which then produce much steeper warming later on ."
The change in CO2 is rather insignificant and represents change in ocean solubility vs temp. The change in atmospheric concentration of CO2 can not result in the observed temp changes of 8-10oC. The only cause that can result in such a temp change, is energy input to the Earth system. I don't know what causes that change in E input.
I wish George W. Bush would tell the democrats on Capitol Hill to "go f**** yourselves."
Actually, the systems that contribute to the glacial-interglacial change (temperature and CO2) are known; quantification of their total effect is still being worked on. But since in the glacial-interglacial period atmospheric CO2 has been between a minima of ~180 ppm and a maxima of ~280 ppm, there are negative feedbacks that restrain the entire range (and also therefore keep temperature in defined range -- speaking only about the natural system here).
How did they measure C02 emission during/after the Krakatoa eruption in 1883?
This is from NASA Mar 19, 2007.
"NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records"
"Long-term climate records are a key to understanding how Earth's climate changed in the past and how it may change in the future. Direct measurements of light energy emitted by the sun, taken by satellites and other modern scientific techniques, suggest variations in the sun's activity influence Earth's long-term climate. However, there were no measured climate records of this type until the relatively recent scientific past."
The combined land surface and ocean temperature anomalies show an increasing trend -- globally (with a smaller signal in the Southern Hemisphere). The ocean temperatures would obviously be unaffected by UHI.
One of my points subsequent to #5 will summarize the Urban Heat Island issue, another oft-repeated incorrect point here on FreeRepublic.
Which should have resulted in the "liquisphere" (air/water) boiling off eons ago.
I suspect you were reading about results from feedback 'models'. The subject of 'modeling' was addressed in the documentary and it is quite true to my experience.
We can achieve statistical models that yield the result we are looking for just by changing a few parameters. But the purpose of a statistical model is not to get a result but to try and expain a large portion of the variability.
We can overparametrize a model that will explain almost all the data but will be poorly predictive. We can also achieve models that are accurate but very inprecise.
The only way to be 100% certain of a model is to have access to infinite and all data on all variables. Then our parameter estimates approach their true natural state. But that never happens and that is why we use statistical inferences to generate ideas and questions for further study, never for political results.
I have witnessed scientific misconduct, normally committed by those that are paid by political programs, too numerous to list here. One example that the general public might recall is one dealing with second hand smoke. I personally witnessed a panel whose continued funding was contingent on getting a desired political result, they changed p-values from 0.05 to 0.10 so that they could say they achieved statistical significance. Such misconduct in science is everywhere that politics sticks its nose. There are numerous examples in medical research where pharmaceutical corporations basically bribe their way to convincing their virtually placebo agent is 'effective', and they are masters at coming up with 'explanations'.
One saying that is a tautology in statistics (and mathematical statistics is precisely what are ised) is:
"All MODELS are false, some are useful".
That's what we are after, we are after practical knowledge, we will never achieve perfect understandings. But it is precisely our tolerance of imperfection that allows blowhard politicians to trample on our principles.
It may be a good idea to curb some emissions based on allergies and toxicity, but to turn science on its head as a means of convincing lawmakers to change the law and redirect funds is disengenuous. Gore along with Green Peace, Gorbachev's Green Cross and the UN Law of the Sea Treaty is a global takeover movement that is turning science on its head as a means to obtain power.
1. 100 ppm is not insignificant. 2. Change in CO2 ocean solubility is only a minor factor. 3. CO2 is a forcing factor that combined with other positive feedback effects can result in the observed temperature change.
All of this will be explained when I finish point #5 in my profile. Please bide your time and wait to see if my explanation adequately explains this confusing and often counter-intuitive issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.