Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 5/9

This is the Australian Broadcasting Corporations presentation and debate of Martin Durkins documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• ABC
• GREAT
• global
• warming
• swindle
• debate

[waltermh111]

So having 3 skeptics able to give uninterrupted answers was not impartial?

To be honest, it was a more balanced panel then the balance of the debate in reality.

This was about 6:40 while the climate community is much more in favor of GW.

How is it unfair when skeptics were given ample time to talk.

[rileannas]

David Karoly from UMelbourne is great. He really knows what he's talking about.

I feel that they give too much artificial "balance" though. The division of climatologists on the existence of AGW is not 50-50 like they set it up here. It's more like 97-3. (Doran and Zimmerman, 2009)

[fusedchromosome]

It's interesting how Carter tries to downplay Durkin's utterly dishonest (or just plain stupid) mistake about volcanoes emitting more CO2 than humans. This is a very basic scientific fact that any half-competent researcher should have picked up on prior to putting it into a "documentary" that tries to accuse scientists of being dishonest and/or incompetent.

[fusedchromosome]

at 0:30 Carter says "...I use diagrams which are 50 years old. Science is not torn up and thrown away. It's built upon."

Yes it is. That's why you don't go running to 50 year old diagrams when current ones provide new information. Carter is full of shit.

[fusedchromosome]

As for Evans "you have to put your faith in the satellite data"

No, you have to ensure that all available lines of evidence are considered before you put your "faith" in anything. If a line of evidence ( in this case the satellite data) doesn't jive with the bulk of the evidence, you don't just jump on the outlier. You scrutinize it even more, which is exactly what Christy and Spencer did not do. Evans shouldn't be giving an opinion on anything scientific. He's a dyed-in-the-wool denier.

[fusedchromosome]

Then at 7:13 Evans says "You've either got to argue that the satellite data is just wrong"

Followed by "There's been so much criticism of the surface temperature record, particularly with respect to urban heat island effects that you have to put your faith in the satellite data"

The satellite data was wrong and the BEST project shot down that nonsense that scientists didn't properly account for the urban heat island effect, so Evans was full of shit twice in less than two minutes.

[fusedchromosome]

at 6:35 Evans says "How do you explain the fact the satellite data...gives you essentially no global warming...since 1980."

He's using Christy and Spencer from UAH. Problem is that their data analysis was ultimately shown to be flawed. Christy and Spencer now admit that the satellite data shows warming. Evans is defending bad data, while conveniently ignoring every other line of evidence.

[bubbah]

@sssssjjjj1 Also, they did NOT predict an ice age during the 70s, you ignorant little cunt.

[bubbah]

@sssssjjjj1 Are you fucking retarded?

Do you even understand what "the decline" is referring to?