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…
Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of the graphs contained serious errors but he said they were corrected in time for the second transmission of the programme following inquiries by The Independent…
However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.
Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. “There was a fluff there,” he said.
If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 – although that would have undermined his argument.
It does? I think he was showing that the two halves of the century were relatively close in the amount of warming although it had a fraction of the current industrial production. How could the planet have warmed so drastically without an modern industrial base?
Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available – but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today’s temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years
Here’s the sunspot graph. Note that it’s an extrapolation based on isotope numbers, and it indicates that sunspot activity has been far greater than any time in the past 10,000 years. It’s an educated guess, but the data seems consistent.
It also seems to match up with the average temperatures that far exceed the past 1,000 years, but don’t let that stop you from selling your car and buying a mule.
There are a couple of other points from the article I want to address:
One reason the temperature drops after a large volcanic eruption is sulphates. Fortunately they’re rather short-lived in the atmosphere.
Lies & Graphs–
Yes, I’m disappointed in the fact some data in the movie was fudged, because it’s a Coulterism. Because a small amount of information was outrageous, people think it’s then OK to toss out everything that was in the movie, even if much of that information is reliable!
There are some very valid points in the movie that still damage the claim to man-made global warming:
1: CO2 levels lag behind warming. They do not cause the warming, nor do the increased CO2 levels (which persist for decades on average) result in increased planetary temperatures. If that were the case, the increasing CO2 would cause a feedback loop that would make Earth uninhabitable, and that’s the greatest flaw of the Global Warming movement. It has been shown that Earth’s temperature varies, and those variations far outweigh any contribution by carbon dioxide-based warming.
2: The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is minor, and it’s greenhouse ability is trumped by water vapor. Additionally, CO2 sources come mainly from non-industrial sources. The percentage of man-made gas emitted into the atmosphere through human pollution is tiny.
3: Carbon dixoide-based warming is greatest in dry climates. 3/4 of the planet surface is water and the humidity over those areas makes CO2 based warming insignificant. Essentially, the CO2 based warming over areas of low humidity are resulting in a majority of earthly warming, which means the heat-transfer from those locations is enormous.
4: The effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation is fascinating and has an excellent correlation. Variations in the solar wind that deflect these particles could explain warming variations quite easily.
5: Enforced changes in the global economy to run ‘green’ power will end up harming developing economies, especially those in impoverished nations. Coupled with the ban on DDT manufacture, it certainly seems like environmentalists want to kill all Africans.
6: As for the graphs, the Independent says there are more “widely available” graphs that are better. They don’t explain where these graphs come from. Additionally, the Independent attacks the scientists themselves and their source of funding, a salient point brought up in the movie itself!
7: As for Durkin’s claim that “sun-spots” cause Global Warming– that’s not entirely correct. He doesn’t say sun-spots are the only predictor of global activity.
So, I wouldn’t dismiss the entire documentary for some fudged data.