“After 1985 we don’t see any rise or shortening of the solar cycles compared to what we saw in the temperature [record],” Dr Friiss-Christensen said.

The article doesn’t record Durkin’s response to this point, but he does admit to an error in the temperature graph.

“Thank you for highlighting the error on the 400-year graph. It is an annoying mistake which all of us missed and is being fixed for all future transmissions of the film. It doesn’t alter our argument,” Mr Durkin said.

The correction doesn’t make it onto the first cut of the DVD.

Elsewhere, Durkin has admitted that the claim made in the documentary that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans is also false (corrected on the DVD).

The admission appears in a subscription-only article in the Scotsman, conveniently available for free over here (though possibly not for long).
www.citizens1st.com/story.asp?idstr=105983100

If you after reading these two hundred entries you have still have no idea of what Durkin is accused of you are rather spectacularly clueless I’m afraid.

If anyone is at all interested why your comments are completely, absolutely, demonstrably wrong they could consider what some actual climate scientists have to say about the stock myths peddled by denialists like yourself:

www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

If you want to dispute this JohnA – perhaps you’d like to come over to the forum – the link is above…

The bottom two records are the climate change records produced in the IPCC Second AR and the “Hockey Stick” produced in the TAR. The Hockey Stick has been thoroughly debunked as “bad science” and bad statistics by multiple independent investigators. There are not a few scientists who claim that the “Hockey Stick” may well be a scientific fraud. It certainly has no legitimacy as a reconstruction of past climate when key statistical metrics show that it has no statistical significance.

Personally I regard the “Hockey Stick” as a key indicator of “Real Climate Change Denial” since its purpose appears to be to reduce natural climate change to a minimum while purporting to show a climate recketing out of control since the end of the 19th Century – it is a false picture of past climate but a totem for environmentalists.

So I have no idea what Durkin is meant to be accused of

George Monbiot takes exception to this.
www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/01/correspondence-with-hamish-mykura/

badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2024&start=210

“weltanschauung”?

especially as it’s one your hero Comrade Furedi likes to use when he’s attacking Environmentalists as ‘religiously motivated’.

www.novo-magazin.de/86/novo8612.htm

badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2024&start=210

Dean constantly defers the argument.

or are the questions about your politics too embarrassing for you?

Incidentally there are a number of very reasonable questions others have for you on Ben’s forum.

I’m assuming your tactic is to:

1. hide…

See you at:

badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2024&start=210

if you have a better explanation…

I’m happy to take your word for it mikep – although you are a bit of an oddball – most people that push the denialist viewpoint are from the extreme left or right. Durkin is a fine example as a member of the ‘Living Marxism’ who pushes an extreme right ‘Libertarian’ agenda on the potty theory that this will hasten the demise of capitalism. You may wish to ignore this on the basis that you want to be fair to the chap – but he demonstrably distorts scientific data, and the words of scientists to make his point, think you’re being more than a little naive – I don’t believe that Durkin deserves the ‘benefit of the doubt’ ( but then you Lib Dems have alway been a bit soft on serial offenders).

But I wouldn’t want to discourage you from voting Lib-Dem – they were the first mainstream party to accept the reality of climate change – and constantly press for the most radical measures to tackle it…

I just didn’t want mikep to labour under the misapprehension that McIntyre was a ‘scientist’ ST – you’re usually get hot under the collar about that sort of thing – I’m surprised I don’t have your support in this?

“Stephen McIntyre is, according to the Wall Street Journal, a “semiretired Toronto minerals consultant” who has spent “two years and about $5,000 of his own money trying to double-check the influential graphic” known as the “hockey stick” that illustrates a reconstruction of average surface temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, created by University of Virginia climatologist Michael Mann.”

info-pollution.com/mandm.htm

www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8

mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/02/trying-to-create-mountains.html

You don’t have to give it unconditional support; I’m just looking for an example where you think the researchers have taken broadly the right approach, and where you have some confidence in their results.

www.climateaudit.org/?p=967#more-967

Note in particular how these three studies all use the bristlecone pine series which are the subject of controversy.

“Here’s a quick summary of the overlap of proxies in three widely publicized “independent” 2006 studies. The number of proxies are all small (Juckes -18; Osborn – 14; Hegerl – 12). All three use multiple bristlecone/foxtail chronologies: Juckes 4; OSborn 2; Hegerl 2.”

Follow the links on the left to see plenty of discussion of the other reconstructions which are claimed to be independent.

I am not going to waste any more of my time trying to talk to Deano and Liverpool Miss, but I may respond if someone puts forward a favoured reconstruction for discussion as the definitive re-construction, or even one which avoids most of the pitfalls we know about already.