This evening, on another network’s national newscast, the contents of a British documentary called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” were reported. Many readers of this blog have brought this film to my attention and, as it has been widely available from time to time on YouTube and elsewhere on the Web, I often open my mail client in the morning to find the URL to this documentary in my inbox. Thank you to those of you who have sent this my way. I am always keen to get more information and more context on the climate change story.
But, as I have pointed out to many of you have corresponded with me over this, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which aired in early March on Channel 4 in the UK, has proved to be a swindle itself: The producer of the documentary has admitted that he fabricated some of the data to make his point.
The following article appeared in the British newspaper The Independent on March 17. It was written by the paper's science editor, Steve Connor:
The real global warming swindle
A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors
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 . . .
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.
Mr Durkin has already been criticised by one scientist who took part in the programme over alleged misrepresentation of his views on the climate . . .
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.
“The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find,” Mr Durkin said. . . .
[Read the full story at: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece ]