Safe Mode: On
Global Warming Swindle debate pt. 1

Martin Durkin interviewed by Australian journalist Tony Jones.
Durkin is presented with question about the use of the graphs and charts in his documentary and the controversy around using quotes out of context. He was later hit by a lawsuit from some of the scientists he used in his film.

Loading the player ...
Embed CodeSwitch Player
Plays: 3036 (Embed: 0)

Added: Oct-12-2009 
By: Lazerhead
In:
Other
Tags: climate change, global warming swindle, durkin, martin
Views: 3146 | Comments: 14 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
'
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • That interviewer demonstrates staggering ignorance. This is an old vid also, I believe most of this guys 'faults and errors' have now been accepted as correct. The hockey stick is now removed from IPCC reports.

    Posted Oct-12-2009 By 

    (1) | Report

  • I love Australia but... one of the last people I would ever pay mind to on any topic of science is a journalist from Australia. The media
    there largely does it's populace a disservice (vaccination? Evolution?) when it comes to accurate science representation. Not that the US media is much better at it ;)

    Posted Oct-12-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • The mechanisms claimed to be driving man made climate change are conjectured, not proven. Solar temperature variation was disregarded as a mode for climate change a long time ago as the variation was too small to generate the pronounced rise in temperatures(which I believe to be wrong). However, I believe recent research on magnetic cycles of the sun claims that the solar wind can cause warming, a mechanism to do with the van-allen belts and water vapour. You can see such articles on the pre-pee More..

    Posted Oct-12-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

    • No sources? Oh that's right, the peer-reviewed consensus of scientific research doesn't agree with your points.

      But for someone who thinks anthropogenic global warming amounts to "conjecture," I wouldn't expect you to have any respect for accurate science.

      That would get in the way of parroting predetermined opinion!

      Posted Oct-13-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

    • LOL, Your kidding right. AGW is a theory... I say again THEORY..and according to recent published accounts.. based on admitted flawed data sets in the current climate models. Release the raw data please!!! Prove me wrong. Seems some Cherry picking of data for political and economic rather than science. No point at responding until you can give me the raw data that the ICC has lost, misplaced or won't release..Have a nice day.. Oh, by the way..Heads up..Most any data can be skewed. When the full More..

      Posted Oct-13-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

    • So... how do you define scientific theory?

      Here's the important parts excerpted from another topic, but same argument:

      "In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

      "facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts ar More..

      Posted Oct-13-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

    • So much for trying to prove me wrong. My claims are valid. Explain the cooling trend for the past 11 years. I noticed you never touched on the PDO or solar cycles. Those same climate experts are waffling on it. Does it follow the hockey stick path? Same old song and dance.."Not enough data to accurately model the current cooling trend". Could your argument be flawed? Ya-mal is just the tip and that blog states the following "all of the these proxy records are subject to revision More..

      Posted Oct-14-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

    • You're touching on topics you seem to have little understanding of. There is an expert consensus for a reason. Your distrust of accurate science reveals that you us other factors to determine accuracy in science - politics, religion, conspiracy, etc.

      Here's a place to start: 11 years doesn't represent global trends. It's a political cherrypick and a joke to informed science.

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/

      I wouldn't expect you to break your predete More..

      Posted Oct-14-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

  • Ummmmm.....the earth is cooling and has been for 10 years. Even IPCC's top butt kisser concedes this fact.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=fd981fbc-47e4-4318-9980-ff5d5a2f3c3b

    Posted Oct-12-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

    • "The blogosphere (and not only that) has been full of the %u201Cglobal warming is taking a break%u201D meme lately. Although we have discussed this topic repeatedly, it is perhaps worthwhile reiterating two key points about the alleged pause here.

      (1) This discussion focuses on just a short time period %u2013 starting 1998 or later %u2013 covering at most 11 years. Even under conditions of anthropogenic global warming (which would contribute a temperature rise of about 0.2 ºC over this per More..

      Posted Oct-13-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

  • "Again, IPCC- providers postulate anthropogenic global warming after a period of 11 years of cooling, which were, of course, global warming, nevertheless! The manmade CO2 myth goes back to Edmund de Rothschild (1987) - 28.53 min but was incarnated by Keith Briffa´s (1995) "detection" of a positive correlation between summer temperature and the width of treerings in Yamal, Siberia. The material had been provided by 2 Russians - on their mere words, although it might just as easily More..

    Posted Oct-14-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • This effort by these Global Warming 'scientists' include using politicians to silence their opponents by cutting funding, using media to ridicule their opponents and to hype theirs, by cutting out peer review organizations which had any negative reviews at all, and by hiding and isolating the science.

    Posted Nov-23-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • If one produces a study that goes against the theory, it doesn%u2019t negate the theory because of the large volume of studies that support it. If a large number of studies go against the theory it is weakened, but it probably won%u2019t be thrown out until the aha moment when a new theory explains more of the data than the old one.

    Neither does a large volume of studies that claim to support a theory prove it, especially when these studies in peer reviewed journals are carefully screened by pe More..

    Posted Nov-23-2009 By 

    (0) | Report