Bob ‘respect the facts‘ May has been failing to heed his own advice again. Here’s a recording of him at the ‘Oxford is My World‘ event on 5 June, accusing Martin ‘great global warming swindle’ Durkin of being ‘a chap who earlier is notable for Channel Four’s […] three-part programme showing that HIV didn’t cause AIDS’.
Where does May get his ‘facts’ from?
Martin Durkin has made no such series of films. May’s point is that ‘denialists’ like Durkin set out to deliberately misinform the world about the science of climate change. No doubt the misinformation May spreads about those he disagrees with is a genuine, innocent mistake – we look forward to hearing him correct it.
All you have to do is go to Wihipeadia and insert whatever information you want to quote about Durkin and then point to Wikipeadia and say “there is your proof.” Just for good measure, you have Greenpeace put Durkin in its exxonsecrets database and have desmogblog list him as a denier. All bases covered. None of it true, but all verifiable as “fact”.
I’ve just come across this place after following an assortment of links, and find it both interesting and informative. Having been interested in Climate since the late 1980s, when I “discovered” some strange things in the Instrumental record, I’ve followed the “scientific” aspects of change by the simple though time consuming method of examining /for myself/ some of the voluminous supplies of research data that can be obtained from the WWW. This has led me (inevitably, I think) to the conclusion that much of the literature on climate change reflects the preconceived notions of the authors as much as the realities concealed within the data they obtained or chose to publish.
It is abundantly clear that few if any of the politicians, eminent scientists, newspaper (and media in general) science writers have ever in their lives examined the information that underlies the opinions or prejudices that they are so eager to pass on.
Whenever I find myself talking with people about climate affairs I listen to their opinions and arguments, and finally ask whether they themselves have ever looked at any files of climate data (the hard facts, or as close to them as one can get), and if so have they ever tackled them using data analysis methods. Without exception so far everyone has had to admit that they never have. “So how do you know that the arguments you are putting forward and supporting have any basis in fact?” Of course they do not know anything about the real state of affairs. They have been brainwashed by huge amounts of propaganda that is both drip- and force- fed to us all, from primary school, or earlier, through secondary school projects to A levels and university courses. It is continuously reinforced by the all-pervading mantras of “carbon footprint”, “saving the planet”, phrases that one hears many times a day, invariably without any thought about what it may mean, and crucially, whether it means anything at all.
I could write a book, I think, on what I’ve done, but one clear conclusion comes through. This is that it is very difficult indeed to find anything that points to us being in the throes of a devastating temperature increase. Yes, the climate of many places has warmed very obviously over the last century or so, but not in the way that appears to be believed by many. What has happened repeatedly is that temperatures have increased but mainly by step (or very rapid) changes which punctuate long periods of stable regimes. Oddly, this seems to have escaped the attention of climatologists, yet it is very simple to demonstrate by elementary techniques that anyone who can drive a spreadsheet could set up.
I’ve written enough! Glad to have met you, and I hope that what I’ve said might be interesting.
Cheers, Robin Bromsgrove
OK it’s been nine years now. Did he correct himself?