Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

C4ís debate on global warming boils over
Times Online ^ | March 15, 2007 | Sam Coates, Mark Henderson

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: “You’re 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 Durkin’s 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 Leroi’s 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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: change; climate; climatechange; globalwarming; media; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-140 next last
To: Hostage
I have witnessed scientific misconduct, normally committed by those that are paid by political programs, too numerous to list here.

Engineers have their "boondoggles". They don't create anything of value but they guarantee a paycheck.

61 posted on 03/21/2007 9:51:41 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Fake but Accurate": NY Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Exactly.

One of the oldest [Liberal] tricks in the book is to take the opposite side, then slowly manipulate the "facts" until the opposition "sees it your way" This is exactly what I see going on right here. Obvious natural processes and historical facts are slowly and inexorably being "adjusted" and manipulated to bring the "naysayers" back on to the reservation, as it were.

The opposer (former global warming skeptic) explains a series of 'Epiphanies" in the process if becoming "right minded" and drags as many gullible spineless skeptics back on to the farm with them.

62 posted on 03/21/2007 10:06:19 AM PDT by xcamel (Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
All past events?

Wow, they are smarter than the smartest woman in the world.

63 posted on 03/21/2007 10:07:09 AM PDT by Osage Orange (Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rodgers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens
Excellent post. You've shown how the trivial CO2 influence on temperature has been blown way out of proportion by the AGW zealots -- asserting that it's a huge and important problem when it is just the opposite--a non problem. I call it the global warming hoax.
64 posted on 03/21/2007 10:08:28 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
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

That's BS, Yeah we now have more environmental regulations since then, but China, India, Brazil, etc. do not, and back then those said countries were not significantly industrialized as they are today. And because of those countries there's more of a net pollution today then back then.

65 posted on 03/21/2007 10:08:32 AM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avacado

Is this true about the last decade? All I ever hear is that each year broke another record for warmest. Can someone point me to the data for this?

Here's a chart with sufficient resolution to show what's going on, the high spikes in temp are due to El Nino.

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C_lrg.gif

 

However, seems we are peaking out in the the Solar cycle:

New Scientist - Hyperactive sun comes out in spots

 

 

The interesting test will be on whether or not ocean and tropospheric temperatures drop as this 1000 year high in solar activity reverses as it is predicted for coming decades.

 

NASA - Long Range Solar Forecast

 

And may already be showing up in falling ocean temperatures since ~2003

Sea Change in Global Warming
Patrick J. Michaels
The American Spectator, 8/25/2006
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10273

See also:

Global cooling effect
Terence Corcoran, National Post
September 16, 2006
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=9e919563-e44b-4ca2-9706-8af9cf743c95

 

Earth in for another "ice age" in mid-century - scientist
ST. PETERSBURG, February 6 (RIA Novosti) - Low solar activity could trigger a global freeze in the middle of the 21st century, a Russian astronomer said Monday.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060206/43371626.html


66 posted on 03/21/2007 10:20:45 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
"1. 100 ppm is not insignificant.

The range was from 190 to 270 ppm, or about 80ppm. The insignificance I was referring to is the ability of the gas at either of those concentrations to result in a significant temp change. The temp changes given, are on the order of 1.5 orders of magnitude off.

"2. Change in CO2 ocean solubility is only a minor factor."

No.

"3. CO2 is a forcing factor that combined with other positive feedback effects can result in the observed temperature change.

No. The equilibrium temp reached is almost the same temp for either 190, or 270ppm [CO2]. It is ~0.3o higher. It can not be 8-10oC higher. I used a 288K base temp with a 390W/M2 solar E input, and IPCC's 5.35ln(C/Co formula for the increased energy absorption for CO2

"All of this will be explained "

OK. I wanted to post what you'll have to explain away though.

67 posted on 03/21/2007 10:21:15 AM PDT by spunkets ("Freedom is about authority", Rudy Giuliani, gun grabber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
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”.

That doesn't f*cking help the debate any. Obscene emails p!ss me off, g*ddammit!

68 posted on 03/21/2007 10:21:49 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Will I be suspended again for this remark?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

WOW! Thank you very much! That's great information.


69 posted on 03/21/2007 10:25:15 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange
Are you saying all the C02 was deposited in ice bubbles?

Ice core bubbles are samples of the atmosphere at the time of snow deposition. So they have a representative concentration of atmospheric CO2 at that time.

70 posted on 03/21/2007 10:54:14 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: qam1

See my profile, point #4, for clarification.


71 posted on 03/21/2007 10:54:45 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
How then can there be a runaway feedback?

There is no runaway feedback. CO2 concentrations top out at around 280 ppm during interglacials. The positive feedbacks are important for the transition out of a glacial period (and they are negative feedbacks for the transition INTO a glacial period!!!!).

Remember the requirement of AGW is that the warming should happen at height first, then transmit to the ground.

Global warming takes place because atmospheric CO2 absorbs longwave radiation emitted FROM the surface (the surface converts incoming shortwave (solar) radiation into longwave IR). Your statement doesn't make sense.

The programme showed an excellent correlation between solar sunspot activity and temperature change.

See the initial link in point #2 of my profile. Why did the temperature rise above current levels in the Mediaeval warm period?

According to the National Academy of Sciences assessment of the Mann "Hockey Stick", sufficient quantification of proxy climate data is unavailable for a definitive comparison of MWP temperatures to now. Qualitative indicators demonstrate that the MWP was approximately as warm as now. (The Little Ice Age was definitely colder than either.)

72 posted on 03/21/2007 11:01:16 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
So then it would be fair to say that we compounded the problem by being so proactive and successful in ridding the atmosphere of man-made aerosols that we have now come a cropper, eh?

To an extent, yes.

73 posted on 03/21/2007 11:06:43 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
cogitator is our Eric Hoffer; what he lacks in sophistication he makes up in single-minded dedication.

How sophisticated do you need me to be?

74 posted on 03/21/2007 11:07:46 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Has any study taken ice cores from years since we have been measuring CO2 and then compared those directly to the recent records of CO2 data?

There are better plots available, but basically, the ice core data merges right into the Mauna Loa curve. What does that tell you? (And do I need to be more sophisticated?)

75 posted on 03/21/2007 11:14:24 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Regarding your response to number 1, CO2 is a climate forcing factor, causing other climate system changes resulting in the full effect.

Regarding your response to number 2, I have encountered the author of the Web site here on FR before (by invitation). Because of his attitude and bearing, reasonable exchange of ideas is impossible. My profile will provide references indicating that the warming of the oceans in glacial-interglacial transitions only accounts for about 10% of the change in atmospheric CO2. If you need to believe otherwise, then such information won't be relevant to you. I, in fact, also thought that the warming of the oceans was the main factor in the glacial-interglacial CO2 change. This assumption is erroneous.

The equilibrium temp reached is almost the same temp for either 190, or 270ppm [CO2]. It is ~0.3o higher. It can not be 8-10oC higher. I used a 288K base temp with a 390W/M2 solar E input, and IPCC's 5.35ln(C/Co formula for the increased energy absorption for CO2

CO2 is not the only factor. A doubling of CO2 will account for about 0.8-0.9 C rise directly. (I suspect that you didn't use the equilibrium blackbody temperature, a very common error, because when that error is made, the result is ...... 0.3 C!!!). Other positive feedbacks, mainly increased water vapor, account for the rest.

OK. I wanted to post what you'll have to explain away though.

Already on my agenda, except the last part. If I have to, I can find the discussion on RealClimate where that error is explained. (Note that ancient_geezer disputes that the important effect is atmospheric warming; he has a counter-position that the surface warming for doubling CO2 won't be the same as the whole atmosphere warming. I've heard his argument and I only state what the IPCC and climate scientists say.)

76 posted on 03/21/2007 11:25:03 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: P-40

This thread is heavier than any of the other threads out there.


77 posted on 03/21/2007 11:33:01 AM PDT by Ieatfrijoles (Incinerate Riyadh Now.(Request shot splash))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
See my profile, point #4, for clarification.

HUH? I never said it's been cooling since 1998

What I said was

1998 was the hottest year on record - It was
since then the temps have been slightly lower -They have been

and relatively stable. - They also have been, which even if we dismiss 1998 as an outlier, the stability of the 21st century so far shows the planet has stopped it's warming trend.

This fits with the solar hypothesis more than the AGW, the sun after it reached it's maximum activity in 1000 years in 1998 has stabilized just like the temps here on earth, meanwhile while even though we have continued to pump out CO2 in that time the temperature hasn't continued to increase.

78 posted on 03/21/2007 11:35:25 AM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

I suggest you read the followingf and get back to us!

href="http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html


79 posted on 03/21/2007 11:35:45 AM PDT by BillM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: John Semmens
I agree with your post for the most part. However, the point of my question was a dig at the offered "explanation" for the lag between temperature increases and increases in atmospheric CO2. As the "Global Warming Swindle" program demonstrated, the real explanation is that CO2 concentrations are driven by temperature changes.

I'm personally rooting for an ironic conclusion to the GW debate:
1. Gore has it backwards: atmospheric CO2 increases are caused by temperature increases (not the other way around).
2. Gore has it backwards: GW is actually beneficial (not harmful).
3. Gore has it backwards: Humans have not been causing GW, but have in fact been slowing it down (compared to the warming taking place on other planets). This last has not been proven, but seems reasonable if you consider that volcanoes only manage to eject a small percentage of their eruptions to a significant altitude; jet planes are much more efficient at dumping sulfur compounds at 30,000+ feet.

It may turn out that Gore does not have it backwards, but is merely 100% wrong on point 3.
80 posted on 03/21/2007 11:49:05 AM PDT by Ragnar54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-140 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson