"First: the programme itself is much improved," says Dr Gray of NZ's Climate Science Coalition. "All the objections to the original programme have been cleaned up. [Crawler Carl Wunsch, for example] who claimed he was railroaded into contributing, has gone... This version [which was quite a bit shorter that the original - Ed.] should replace the one already circulated whenever possible."
I have to pause here to note Eric Young's simpering disclaimer at the start of the show -- "Prime TV and Prime News wash our hands of this while thing" he almost said, before announcing that Swindle's maker Martin Durkin doesn't debate with warmists so the panel discussion later didn't include hime [a lie, as it happens; it's Warmist-in-Chief Al Bore who doesn't debate]. Anyway, back to Dr Gray's review:
Then, to the discussion. In Australia they had a fanatically biased interviewer [Tony Jones] grilling poor Martin Durkin, who had difficulty standing up to him. Here, it was almost fair. Only two scientists to our one. But we won out on the non-scientists. Leighton Smith was the most experienced broadcaster present and he made most of the telling points. His best one was when he exposed the lie that very few scientists were critical of global warming theory. The two IPCC scientists ganged up to interrupt as soon as valid points were made, and the chairman had difficulty controlling them.
Willem de Lange did an excellent job, but it tested his knowledge several times.
David Wratt [from NIWA] put over the same line that he did at his lecture last Wednesday and he honed in on the chief weakness of the Durkin programme, the reluctance to challenge the "Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record" which was accepted as authentic even by Fred Singer. While Durkin was accused of "cherry-picking," the MGSTAR is consistently chosen by the IPCC as the only authentic temperature guide, and all others are carefully downgraded. For example, Manning quoted the IPCC about "the warming of the last fifty years", carefully omitting mention of the satellite and weather balloon records which do not quite make it, and failing to mention that there was cooling for the first half of the period. When the USA was mentioned somebody should have said that the corrected temperature record for the USA shows no warming [and that the warmest year in recent times is not 1998, but 1934].
Wratt even dragged out the Son of Hockey Stick which, again depends on their cherry-picked MGSTAR. Willem made a good point in saying that [in this cherrypicked factoid] the "proxy" measurements stop as soon as they do not agree with the surface readings.
It is unfortunate that Pat Michaels , in The Great Global Warming Swindle did not mention his part in the paper with Ross McKitrick , 2007 which shows that the MGSTAR is biased by "socioeconomic factors". This paper is published in the peer-reviewed prestigious Journal of Geophysics Research.
Wratt makes great play with how the IPCC only deals with peer-reviewed publications, unless, of course, if it is a Journal they do not approve of, like Energy and Environment. He does not mention that the IPCC controls the Editors and the peer-reviewers of most of the Journals...
Insufficient play was made by the point made in The Great Global Warming Swindle that everything written by the IPCC has to be approved by the Government Representatives. With the "Summary for Policymakers" they have to approve each line. David Wratt is a "Drafting Author" taking down dictation. They like to pretend they are independent of the politicians and they are not.
Cindy Baxter was a disaster for her supporters. She obviously did not understand a word of the film or what the others were talking about and she made a feeble attempt to accuse us all of being paid off by big oil. The reality is she is paid how to think by Greenpeace Headquarters.
Martin Manning [a 'professor of Climate Change' at Victoria University] has aged considerably from when I first knew him. He looks like a possible suitable candidate for the role of Count Dracula and did not come over as very convincing.
I find it difficult to believe that anybody who witnessed the programme could possibly still believe that the science behind the global warming theory is settled. I wonder how many watched, anyway?
Anyone like to answer him?
PS: I'm curious how many of you know the reason behind the film's title? Who can be the first one to post the reason here? (Clue: there's a link to an infamous movie of the seventies.)
UPDATE 1: More comment and debate around the blogosphere, from NZCPR, Poneke, The Hive, Life From Right Field, Grim Planet, Political Animal, I-Shades, Kiwi Biker, the other Save the Humans site, and the communist who posts at the Ethical Martini. Meanwhile, after failing to ban Prime's screening, the Greens's Frog Blog maintains a studied silence ...
UPDATE 2: A little bird gives me these audience figures for last night's screening:
It did quite well for Prime, which probably has an average channel share of around 5%.
For Great Global Warming Swindle last night Prime scored an 8.4% share of "all viewers 5+" watching TV at that time. It followed one of Prime's top shows, Top Gear, which last night recorded a 10.3% share. The Prime News special debate afterwards itself rated a 10.4% share (slightly fewer viewers, but a higher share of people watching TV at that time). The number of viewers increased slightly when TV3's Criminal Intent finished.
As a comparison, TV One had a 16.6% for most of the night with Sunday Theatre, CSI and Criminal Intent on TV3 had around 20%, and Lock Stock on C4 had a 3.1% share.