Video: ABC Australia's Tony Jones Dissects, Debunks Martin Durkin

Want to learn more details about the climate change “experts” that appear in the Great Global Warming Swindle? Check out our in-depth research database on the most prolific self-proclaimed climate change”skeptics.”

Here you go. The Tony Jones interview of Global Warming Swindle producer, Martin Durkin.

Below is Part 1 and Part 2.


Now that’s science journalism. If I have any quibble it’s that we don’t see the whole thing! I was dying to see how Bob Carter reacted, and whether he was going to trot out his “It’s been colder since 1998” line. How about it? Any chance of the panel discussion before the audience Q&A?

Yeah he trotted that out and was absolutely shot down by the climatologist on the panel. The climatologist they had on the panel was extremely good btw

You can see the full interview, followed by the panel discussion at

When an interviewer as seasoned as Jones gets going. Did you notice Durkin's massive sigh of relief at the end?

Kevin Grandia, you’re my hero! I almost took no pleasure in watching Durkin squirm.


I thought the editing of what was apparently a longer interview probably made the vids a bit less convincing. And I didn’t think the interviewer was as hard on Durkin as he could have been. He should have asked, for example, for Durkin to name the incidences in which the IPCC chooses to use long outdated graphs and analyses rather than recent ones to make points. In what case does the IPCC indicate “now” to mean much less than now? With respect to error bars, how tight are the frickin’ bars on the medieval warm period compared to the last two decades? With respect to Wunsch, why were his comments removed if there was no legal reason to do it? With respect to all of the climatologists who doubt AGW, name them. With respect to solar output, what about stratospheric cooling? Durkin probably would have had answers for some of these, but I still think asking them would have improved the interview. Finally, I think Durkin should have been asked about his motivation. Why does he make films where he misleads the interviewees?

From wikipedia (for his 1997 film ‘Against Nature’): ***the Commission also concluded that Durkin had misled his interviewees about the nature and purpose of the documentary, and that he had misrepresented and distorted their views by editing the interview footage in a misleading way [7]. For these reasons, Channel 4 later issued a public apology on prime time TV.[8]According to The Independent, Durkin “accepts the charge of misleading contributors, but describes the verdict of distortion as ‘complete tosh’.”***

Or how about this tidbit about his 2000 film ‘Modified Truth’: Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, a scientist featured on the program, later said of her participation in the program: “I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position.” I also think Durkin should have been asked about his efforts to show that breast implants improve the health of women.

inconveniency underripe trachomatous cub hiodontidae wavably underpry reglair
R Banks & Son Funerals Ltd

Truly hilarious to see the mounds of steaming-fresh posts Grandia is churning out of his little sausage factory, in total panic over a single tiny documentary.

You appear to be totally apoplectic over this. Hilarious!

Some people get paid to fill pot holes. I get paid to blog and Durkin is one of my favorites. Apoplectic to you, entertainment for me. 

That someone actually pays you for this will remain one of life’s enduring mysteries.

“Some people get paid to fill pot holes.”

The difference being, people who fill pot-holes provide a useful and positive service to society. Hardly comparable to your (and I use the term losely) “job”.

Something about the way you post, the way you appear to design your posts with the intent to come off as smug and mocking of everybody but your own superior self because you somehow think that positioning yourself that way makes you appear intelligent, reminds me of somebody.

Perhaps not in this particular (and amusing attack on Kevin - he’s very hurt I assure you) but the way you use obscure vocabulary and rambling senseless sentences to beat a point into submission has an air of familiarity…..Conrad, is that you?

“…the way you appear to design your posts with the intent to come off as smug …”

So, by “smug”, do you mean like someone who makes statements such as “The science is settled!”, or regularly loudly crows that this-or-that has been “Debunked!!!”?

By “smug”, does that definition include someone who advocates an ideology which denounces any critic thereof a “Denier”?

And by “bullying”, does your definition, by any chance, stretch so far as to include a paid(!) “blogger” who uses his esteemed position to launch oafish character assasinations against teenage girls?

“… the way you use obscure vocabulary…

In deference to your “10 years in corporate sales” and your sociology diploma, I’ll try to use smaller words.

“… and rambling senseless sentences…”

Are your lips and index finger getting tired? Don’t feel too bad, it could be worse. In the real world, your kind usually end up with a paper hat and name tag at some point.

“Conrad, is that you?”

I’m sure among bien-pensents of the trendy liberal chattering-classes, this is viewed as a cruel sting. Better luck next time.

You can never be too apoplexic about it, given the coverage and praise that ‘State of Fear’ recieved.

Yes excellent work by Jones to make Durkin look like a liar and fraudster! I especially liked that he is left alone against anybody that has an agenda or is making a living on climatehysteria! Great work! Too show that this is not about science, but rather ideology and politics!!!

It is actually all about the data. Sunspot activity does not correlate with temperature. Look at the recent data. Leaving out datapoints to make things look nicer is fraud. I’m currently finishing my thesis in climate change science so I will not call myself an expert (yet :-)), but even I would have looked up the references and found out that their data are too old, or do not correspond to the originals. It is sad that people so easily believe fraudsters…

Is Martin Durkin a Liar and a fraudster?
For some interesting background on Martin Durkin, see:

Modified Truth

Channel 4’s Problem with Science

George Monbiot’s articles are fully referenced, so the reader can check for themselves!

The Great Global Warming Swindle: open letter to Martin Durkin [Not yet answered 18.07.2007].

Misrepresentations of scientific evidence in TGGWS

After watching TGGWS, the interview with Durkin and these other scientific criticisms, it is hard to come to any other conclusion!

It’s time for everyone to do the same!

What really makes all the hysteria on the part of Global Warming enthusiasts all the more ridiculous, is that Australia is currently having the coldest winter since 1950.

…you make yourself ridiculous by that statement. Example: in a room full of eco-hitlers, one eco-hitler stands up and makes an intelligent statement. Are we then required to conclude, in direct contradiction of the overwhelming evidence provided by the incessant, idiotic babbling of the remaining eco-hitlers, that all eco-hitlers are intelligent? Indeed, we are not.

“Australia is currently having the coldest winter since 1950.”

This ‘hysteria’ is based upon what mere science and evidence is telling us!

You clearly need to educate yourself!

Climate and weather are NOT the same!

“This ‘hysteria’ is based upon what mere science and evidence is telling us!”

Hmm, ingenious. Here all the rest of us idiots were foolishly going by what mere thermometers are telling us.

“You clearly need to educate yourself!

Climate and weather are NOT the same!”

Thanks for clearing that up.

nonnaturalism hypanthial applicatively lumbrical frontogenesis continuant dispiritedly veritable
Digital Wave Productions

Having read about Durkin, he comes-over as a really nice chap. It’s just amazing how impressions can be misleading.

When Durkin was challenged by Dr Armand Leroi from Imperial College on his use of dubious data in the programme he replied by e-mail saying “you’re a big daft cock”. When Dr Leroi persisted Durkin wrote back telling him to “Go fuck yourself”.

There might be more to TGGWS than it first appears!

Excerpts from IREA letter
..,’We at IREA believe that it is necessary to support the scientific community that is willing to stand up against the alarmists and bring a balance to the discussion’…,

..,’We decided to support Dr. Michaels and his group (New Hope Environmental Services Inc.) . Dr. Michaels has been supported by electric cooperatives in the past and also receives support from other sources’…,

‘In February alone IREA alone contributed

    $100,000 to Dr. Michaels


‘There are other groups that are interested in the issue of global warming and the concerns about its costs. Koch Industries is working with other large corporations including AEP and the Southern company,

    on possibly financing a film that would counteract An inconvenient Truth

. Koch has also decided to

    finance a coalition that very likely will be administered through the National Association of Manufacturers.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has been running two ads in ten states that were financed by General Motors and the Ford Motor Company. CEI has a director on climate change and other employees working on the issue. We have met with Koch, CEI and Dr. Michaels, and they meet among themselves periodically to discuss their activities.’

There may be reason to suspect that TGGWS is the film being referred to! That might well explain the ‘errors’ and undoubted bias, which some might consider amount to chicanery!

Durkin Versus Wunsch
The Oceanographer Carl Wunsch put his side of his conversations with Martin Durkin.

Wunsch’s recollections are very different from Durkin’s.

For a transcript of the interview with Wunsch, see:

Since Durkin has a track record of misleading the public, the reasonable decision would seem to believe Wunsch wholeheartedly. See below.

Modified Truth

Channel 4’s Problem with Science

Excellent Interview. Shows that Tony Jones couldn’t prove a thing. The scientists Tony asked doesn’t mean that Durkins were wrong and Durkin clearly stated in the end that his scientists would challenge Jones’s scientists data anytime. The point in the data from the graph was to show the history and that’s what it did. Solar spots have clearly had a history of being in line with temperature. If recent graphs took out the era when it was warmer then now, it wouldn’t be accurate. Darkin states that the temperatures from the last 17 years are NOT hotter then the Medieval times, so no debunking there either. Seems like Jones was hoping to get the best of Jones, but he didn’t.

Butch, needs a brain transplant! If indeed, he has a brain!
So Tony Jones couldn’t prove a thing!

Methinks Butch needs to read about all the other bad science and fakery used in the making of the film that was left-out because of time considerations.

Tony Jones showed that Durkin faked the data, cherry-picked data to fit his ideology, selectively edited Wunsch, used old data and graphs, because the new ones wouldn’t fit his purpose, misled the audience and has an interesting meaning of ‘now’.

The question we all have to ask ourselves. If Durkin was a used-car salesman, would you buy a car from him?

I don’t think so!

Ahhh, ad hominem attacks because you have nothing to support your point. that makes sense.

Tony Jones tried to imply Durkin faked the data, but Durkin showed he didn’t and said that the new charts don’t show the medieval times and show a hockey stick effect, so in fact the new data is misleading and Jones had nothing to say about that. Let see, do all documentaries show the entire interview. No. Guess you haven’t watched many documentaries. Wuncsch in fact said that all he wanted to show was that the oceans show that global warming is happening, not that it isn’t caused by humans. I don’t see anything misleading and you still haven’t proved a thing. So, the charts came in last minute and weren’t completely correct. He corrected it by backing up the charts to 20 yrs earlier and that’s the right thing to do since the new charts don’t show warmer times.

The question to ask is have you done your research? sounds like no!

For a lengthy referenced debunking of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, visit

Here you will find more examples of deception, fraud and manipulation. The Durkin interview only dealt with a few. To deal with them all would take much longer.

How many times does a person have to be proven a liar and a fraud?
Once, is normally considered sufficient, but with the slippery and sly Durkin, it’s better to make sure the wily bastard can’t wiggle free!

Did you notice how he managed to twist the knife against Carl Wunsch?

I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him!

Yeh, Durkin was certainly shown up for what he is. A liar! HOW COULD YOU LEAVE OUT THE LAST 27 YEARS OF TEMPERATURE RISE!!!

Looks like all the lemmings are following eachother over the cliff-top. What is this a church meeting? Are you all watching the same clip as I am? Durkin totally debunks the whole climate change myth good and proper. This is merely a load of internet addicts and conspiracy theorists talking together in order to bolster their case because they find that they are all in agreement with eachother. Sad or what? If all the worlds moste esteemed scientists did in fact pronounce that the world was flat the same people on this forum would fall for that one too.
Isn’t it funny how this “science” only developed over the past few years? Black hole theory was generally accepted to be the birth of the universe - now no self respecting astronomer or astrophysisist would even utter the theory as it isn’t as solid as everyone thought it. Duh?

This is a fabulous comment because while the durkin illustrates perfectly the workings of the anti-global warming propaganda machine, paulo illustrates the lack of critical thinking ability that allows that propaganda to perpetuate.

inability to see logical fallacies and deception by omission (ex durkins stance on the amount of c02 in the atmosphere, and his systematic ignoring of more recent research); ad hominem attacks on people who understand global warming; and my personal favorite - hypothetical arguments.

paulo - nobody’s going to follow “the scientists” over “the cliff” for pronouncing the world flat, because genuine scietists would never proclaim that. Scientists make statements and form conclusion on the basis of reason and science, unlike durkins.

And when they have a theory, they test it, then test it again, then get someone esle to test and verify it. When it’s proved consistent like global warming findings, reasonable people make decisions based on those findings.

and here is the real clincher. When scientists find out they have an idea wrong, they change and look for better explanations that are correct - and that is a lesson that you and deniers sorely need to learn.

“… and my personal favorite - hypothetical arguments.”

Oh, You mean like claiming Global Warming is a crisis because it will lead to disease, pestilence, hurricanes, starvation, obesity, flooding, drought, an ice age, teenage pregnancy, and gingivitis?

Just wondering.

“And when they have a theory, they test it, then test it again, then get someone esle to test and verify it. When it’s proved consistent like global warming findings, reasonable people make decisions based on those findings.”

So tell us, when has the theory of anthropogenic global warming been tested and verified conclusively?

… (insert sound of crickets chirping) …

Funny how you always seem to skip around that point?

ascertainably immoment ashman archaeographical paraplasis unbombast paddy catha
St Albans Cathedral

Prof Andrew Pitman’s Ebola analogy ‘This idea that the amount of something is proportional of how important it is – is clearly silly. For instance if I’ve injected you with a little Ebola virus - that’s a tiny tiny amount of something but it would have an immense impact on you and you would die. / The amount of something is not in any way proportional to have big impact it would have and CO2 is the same.’ is like comparing apples to oranges.

To say a little Ebola Virus has an immense impact just like a little CO2 has an immense on climate is a false analogy.

Unlike CO2, a static molecule, Ebola replicates over and over giving a lot of Ebola Virus, which has the immense impact.

If CO2 where to have similar properties to Ebola then the analogy would be correct.

Yes you can inject a little Ebola and in the end you will die, but the amount of Ebola in your body at death will be exponentially higher than at the start.

You inject a little CO2 into the atmosphere, that same CO2 doesn’t increase over time, it decreases.

That seems to be what happened to Venus at some point, as the planet now has a turbulent 96% CO2 atmosphere and a 950 degree (F) surface temperature, after probably having undergone a runaway greehouse effect at some point since it’s formation. Please see the Venus Wiki:

The specific Ebola analogy is irrelevant, as one can replace Ebola virus with a dose of any poison, eg, Cyanide, or snake venom, for that matter, and we’d eliminate your objection.

Pitman’s point stands.

Note to the site admins: please permit links to be posted. capping them at 5 or so (or to require registration) should mitigate spam issues once you allow links. Thanks.

The Ebola analogy took all the credibility that so called scientist had. To compare two systems of such difference, especially when the amount is obviously significant in the climate system.
he obviously had no medical understanding what so ever. I watched with a Lab Tech who found it funny.

Maybe someone can ‘dissect’ or ‘massacre’ Durkin’s documentary but not Tony Jones I am afraid. Changing the title to ‘massacre’ - haha - you are protesting too much I think. This was no massacr;, more a girly scrag-fight. They got him on the graphs, very recent evidence for global warming so doubtful on that basis alone. Get real.

It was almost funny to see the obvious slander against the film, and helps to show just how false the IPCC is. It lends much to the film what they did not try and argue. They could only argue small points and were obvious in the ignoring of important facts. This guy is called a credibale journalist after he denies that things need to be taken into proper perspective.