Anyone who actually believed that channel 4 documentary should buy a copy of today's Independant which has Durkin's graphs (complete with invalid attributions, 'accidentally' extended lines and 16 year old data that has long since been superceded) alongside the current data that he carefully didn't use because it would have totally invalidated his case.

Not since I read 'How to lie with Statistics' (a gem of a textbook that we used at university) have I come across such glorious examples of mis-used data. I may keep the graphs as examples for my math pupils...

There's an article at http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece but if you want to see the actual graphs from the programme side by side with the same graphs using up-to-date data, then you'll have to buy a copy of the paper.

I think I'm most impressed by the line that originaly ended at 1980, but Durkin extended to 2000. "There was a fluff there" Durkin says.

Though using 'global' temperature data that only included part of the northern hemisphere and none of the south runs a close second.

Or ignoring the role of sulphate pollution in blocking sunlight before clean air acts came into force... (has the effect of reducing temperatures)

It's such a tough call! You've almost got to admire the man.

PS. You can find the full version of the Durkin's graph on NASA's web site, if you don't want to go out and buy a newspaper. (Durkin cited NASA, he just didn't do anything as obvious as visiting their web site to look at their current data as I just did) IF you visit http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm then read the entire article as it's a pretty balanced discussion and makes intelligent comments on short-run data (five years can't prove anything) and the nature of scientific certainty - we can only assign probabilities to things we cannot test directly.