(no subject)
Yes, the newer graphs do not have such a clear 'Medieval Warming Period' shown.
That's because the science has progressed and we now know more about the weather of the time. It's all rather a bit like declaring that the airlines are swindling us, and you can walk to New Zealand from Australia, because you're using a prehistorical map showing the supercontinent of Pangea before it formed the landmasses we now know.
Strikes me as faintly ludicrous for someone making a fuckload of money out of making controversial documentaries to do the things that Martin Durkin admitted to doing.
~Slotting in unchecked graphics 'at the last minute' and using that to justify some monumental errors, all of which exaggerate and support his rather weak hypothesis.
~Misrepresenting the views of his sources.
~Editing to correct a series of ludicrous claims - there should not be a situation in which a documentary is revised at least 4 times post-release, and there's still misleading information, misrepresentation, etc.
~Retrieving unsupportable facts and using them to rebuff valid arguments. Barely justifiable in an interview, but in a considered documentary? Gah.
~Declaring that, because all of the available and current data does not support your position, that the current data is wrong. That's pretty much the anti-science.
Massive kudos to Prof. David Karoly. I've been saying for a long time that science has needed someone who can explain the issues to the public, who is media savvy and likeable, because the sceptics are much better at the soundbite or headline-grabbing press-release, which is largely why the community is so divided when physicists, climatologists, etc are not.
Kudos are due also to Tony Jones. It's nice to see what can happen when journalists do their research. I know science and technical subjects often leave reporters out of their depth and uncomfortable challenging interviewees, and it was nice to see Durkin called on it.
That's because the science has progressed and we now know more about the weather of the time. It's all rather a bit like declaring that the airlines are swindling us, and you can walk to New Zealand from Australia, because you're using a prehistorical map showing the supercontinent of Pangea before it formed the landmasses we now know.
Strikes me as faintly ludicrous for someone making a fuckload of money out of making controversial documentaries to do the things that Martin Durkin admitted to doing.
~Slotting in unchecked graphics 'at the last minute' and using that to justify some monumental errors, all of which exaggerate and support his rather weak hypothesis.
~Misrepresenting the views of his sources.
~Editing to correct a series of ludicrous claims - there should not be a situation in which a documentary is revised at least 4 times post-release, and there's still misleading information, misrepresentation, etc.
~Retrieving unsupportable facts and using them to rebuff valid arguments. Barely justifiable in an interview, but in a considered documentary? Gah.
~Declaring that, because all of the available and current data does not support your position, that the current data is wrong. That's pretty much the anti-science.
Massive kudos to Prof. David Karoly. I've been saying for a long time that science has needed someone who can explain the issues to the public, who is media savvy and likeable, because the sceptics are much better at the soundbite or headline-grabbing press-release, which is largely why the community is so divided when physicists, climatologists, etc are not.
Kudos are due also to Tony Jones. It's nice to see what can happen when journalists do their research. I know science and technical subjects often leave reporters out of their depth and uncomfortable challenging interviewees, and it was nice to see Durkin called on it.