I realise El Reg is a blog and isn't known for balance but I believe that there ought to be a writer on The register who balances Lewis's views.
A green hardliner has admitted that he passed illegally obtained documents to the DeSmogBlog website, well known for its dubious activist tactics. DeSmogBlog is funded by John Lefebvre, and run by a public relations operator named Jim Hoggan who takes money from "green business". Peter Gleick said he obtained the documents …
Well there is a science section on the site. It's not all IT. This subject could be said to fall under science.
Also I disagree with the call for balance. Even though I disagree with many of these articles (not so much this one), I think this is the kind of thing you live with. I don't like the idea of "fixing" it just because I disagree with it.
Oh, perhaps for balance we should treat this like the climate alarmists are known to do. Make up shit to smear those who don't agree with their way out extremist views ? Is that what you mean ? Perhaps a bit of wire fraud, identity theft, misrepresentation, plus a few outright lies. Hey, then make sure every alarmist blog around runs with the fake document, and then when the fraud is revealed, praise the fraudster as being "courageous" even while is faux apology attempts to repeat the malicious slanders that he deliberately pushed.
Yes, lets all lose our sense f morality and ethics, because, after all, the cause is right and just.
Just a question though, if the cause is so moral, why are so many of its advocates so dishonest, and their arguments so specious ? I mean, there's a whole consensus isn't there, why fake so much ?
"Denial of the global cooling since 1998"
I can't believe that people are still coming out with that one. Well, I can actually, because all they read is the crap that appears on the Register and various other dubious sites.
Come on, Mr ChilliKwok, I am going to call your bluff. What evidence do you base this statement on?
""Denial of the global cooling since 1998"
I can't believe that people are still coming out with that one."
The University of East Anglia released a paper saying there had been no warming for 16 years. Either you believe they fake everything climate-gate style (so you need to throw out their warming conclusions from earlier as well) or you think they are right, and have to accept that there has been, at a minimum, a pause in warming while CO2 levels have continued to skyrocket.
Its true to say that 16 years isn't statistically significant proof of a cease in warming or a slight cooling - but it definitely ISN'T proof of warming.
At a minimum its proof that there is a lot more going on than is accounted for in the climate models.
"The University of East Anglia released a paper saying there had been no warming for 16 years."
I've heard the one about how the University of East Anglia "admitted" that there had been no warming for 15 years (also false).
But I've never heard your upgraded version. 15 becomes 16 and it's now a "paper" they released.
I won't ask you to provide this imaginary paper, because it doesn't exist. But I am always interested in knowing where you guys get these rumors. Can you tell me?
Sorry I was off by 1 year:
"Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. "
Its on the BBC news website if you want to read the whole interview. I haven't bothered to read the full paper - the data is pretty self explanatory.
"Its on the BBC news website if you want to read the whole interview. I haven't bothered to read the full paper - the data is pretty self explanatory."
Except that you are unable to understand it.
Professor Jones is being accurate in that the warming trend did not achieve a 95% significance level. Given the amount of natural variation in the data, the interval in question is a bit short to be able to extract a statistically significant signal (at the 95% level). However:
1. The signal was only just below that level and may well have reached it by now.
2. The trend, despite not hitting the 95% level, was still a warming one. Where is the cooling trend spoken of in the post above?
3. This was during a period when La Nina effects that tend to cool the atmosphere have been present.
4. The warming referred to is atmospheric warming. Oceans have warmed significantly during this period ; it's all part of global warming.
5. For all the claims of CRU fiddling the data they tend to underestimate compared to other climate research centres which have shown significant warming trends over this period.
1) The climate is generally warming (it has been for 400 years)
2) The warming has "paused" temporarily, despite continued increases in CO2 output.
These positions are not mutually exclusive, despite what you climate terrorists would have us believe.
There is no evidence that CO2 production is directly linked to the warming phenomena and the above facts could indeed imply that there is indeed *none*
1. The natural factors that determine climate have been going in the opposite direction.
2. Paused? 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have been in the last 10 years. The trend is actually higher now than it was ten years ago.
There's no other way to explain the current warming other than CO2. CO2 is both necessary, ie, you can't explain it without it, and sufficient, ie, CO2 all by itself explains the warming.
If you want to explain the current warming without CO2, then you need to do two things. First, find an explanation which actually works - no one has done that yet. Secondly, your explanation needs to be so strong that it overwhelms the known impact of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That hasn't happened either.
I see YOU haven't been keeping up on YOUR facts. It turns out that in point of fact only 5 of the warmest years are in the last 100 years, with the other 5 being in the 100 before that. Your little factoid was a result of serious mistakes in the "corrections" made to the raw data by, yep that's right, the same maroons who think "denialists" are too stupid to understand the math.
On a scientific basis CO2 emissions have risen markedly in the last 15 years - agreed?
On a scientific basis the planet hasn't warmed in the past 15 years - agreed?
Remember, if your DNA was 'almost 95%' right you'd be a dolphin.
Discuss those facts instead of nitpicking around the periphery.
I'm not a denialist, but at the very least someone with an open mind has to admit that there is a lot more going on with the planet than the modelling takes into account, and that policy based on imperfect modelling is bad policy.
PS - if you discount this period because of La Nina, then you have to discount the late 90's warming because of El Nino - you can't cherry pick.
"On a scientific basis the planet hasn't warmed in the past 15 years - agreed?"
No not agreed at all. There has been an atmospheric warming trend, the significance of which varies according to the start and end dates considered and which data set is used. However, the warming that has taken place in the ocean is much more significant over this period. Do you dispute that?
"PS - if you discount this period because of La Nina, then you have to discount the late 90's warming because of El Nino - you can't cherry pick."
I am not talking about discounting any period. There will always be natural fluctuations, which is why it is necessary to take rolling averages over long enough time periods. It is the denialists who tend to cherry pick and use 1998 as a starting point because that year was anomalously hot because of El Nino.
Scientists don't cherry pick. The overall temperature of the planet has never decreased and only increased in the periods measured. In fact you can only get pauses in warming if you view a cherrypicked subset of data, like land temps only, or northern hemisphere temps only. The correlation of global datasets including oceans show a clear and uninterrupted warming trend.
I assume you don't understand how dishonest the question was in the first place.
The question was devised by Lubos Motl, a string theorist who also happens to be a pretty vocal climate denier. It was a very specific question, asking about warming from a particular date, and also asking about statistical significance. The fact was that, at the time the question was asked, 1995 was the furthest you could go back and have the warming not be statistically significant. If the start date was 1994, it was. If the question was asked a year later, the warming was also statistically significant.
In short, it was a trick question. Motl already knew the answer, and deliberately crafted the question to get that answer. The whole point was either to catch Phil Jones out as a dishonest scientist (and to Jones's credit, he answered the question completely honestly), or to make a statement that would be read by gullible deniers as some kind of confirmation that global warming wasn't happening.
It's just another example of the typical sleazy and underhand behaviour that climate deniers get up to.
I find Lewis' articles usually miss the point, showing how he does not understand the science and how incredibly stupid the deniers argument is. Probably as he picks up the stories from denialist websites anyway and paraphrases what he thinks they mean.
As for the 1998 date, why do deniers latch onto that date? Abnormally warm el nino year, so making a great point as a baseline to support their views, totally ignoring the fact climate change is a gradual process and any moving averages measured.
Is this the best term?
After the article on the BEST report everyone seemed to be in agreement that warming was happening - all the skeptics said that only idiots ever denied it.
So is there a derogatory term that only covers the wrong sort of warmists now that everyone seems to agree on that bit?
This alarmism isn't new. I've been hearing the same tune from different groups for well over 30 years at least, and it's been going on since long before then.
The problem is the constant cries of "Wolf!" The endless Chicken Littles screaming in a blind panic that the sky is falling, despite all evidence to the contrary. For the wolf never comes! The sky does not fall! Not for the "Population Bomb" criers who were ringing the media's alarm bells in the 1960s and '70s—we were all supposed to be wearing gas masks and living in permanent smog by the 1980s!
Nor have we seen thousands of people killed by those evil nuclear reactors. And then there was "acid rain", deforestation of rainforests, impending asteroids of doom, Bird Flu, and so on.
Not a single cry of "Wolf!" has proved correct. And that is the biggest problem of all: the population of this planet is getting tired of these tricks and, before long, we'll just ignore these cries.
To all the alarmists and Chicken Littles out there, know this: when the Big Bad Wolf finally does make an appearance, it'll be entirely your fault that nobody believes you any more.
Call them Chicken Littles. Call them "Boys who cry 'Wolf!'" (though that doesn't exactly trip off the tongue). But don't get sidetracked by their alleged allegiances: it's not about the "warmists" or "denialists", but about the alarmism. The incessant fear-mongering. The deliberate attempts to spread of terror in the population in order to further their "cause".
We already have names for such people: extremists, fanatics... terrorists*.
* (Contrary to popular belief, an aptitude for throwing bombs or hijacking planes is not a requirement. All that is required is that you use fear and terror to achieve your aims. Look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me.)
As far as crying wolf goes, it's clearly a Bad Thing but I am not sure all the examples you list are the same - Bird Flu was media driven, it was hardly the same people who are pushing for action on climate change.
"The Population Bomb" was wrong but it was the work of one obsessed individual - there was no consensus at any time that Erlich's conclusions were correct. The book was popular because it was alarmist but it was always a fringe view of the science.
Acid rain was (and is) just real, no particular scaremongering, just that the people who were affected by it got cheesed off and made the people causing the problem do something about it - so we scrub sulphur emissions and it helps.
There isn't a single, organised group of wolf criers with a common set of goals through these even if the same people do oppose them each time and lump them together to discredit the lot of them.
I don't think a constant cry of "No Wolf!" is any more helpful than repeated alarmism.
My point isn't the science, but the media's reporting of the science.
That "Population Bomb" theory was all over the media like a rash for ages. I remember it. (I even have an SF novel based on the theory—"Population Doomsday" by Don Pendleton, and ironically, it has two full-page, full-colour ads for cigarettes inserted into the middle of it.)
Bird Flu and the Foot and Mouth outbreak in the UK were instantly pounced upon by the media and cranked right up to 11 too, with parades of "experts" asked leading questions about it all, while MPs were browbeaten into massively idiotic knee-jerk reactions by said media.
"I don't think a constant cry of "No Wolf!" is any more helpful than repeated alarmism."
The opposite of "Stop crying 'Wolf!'" is silence UNTIL you have actual, incontrovertible and rock-solid proof of said wolf. Only THEN should you start ringing the alarm bells.
That's kind of the point of alarms: you only trigger them when there's an actual alarm state. You don't trigger alarms repeatedly when you think there might, possibly, be an undefined emergency at some undetermined time in the future. Maybe.
If you keep setting alarms off every ten minutes, people will simply learn to tune them out.
And that is what I'm trying to get at here. It's not about the Climate Change, or whatever fashionable clothing the Big Bad Wolf happens to be dressed in this time around. It's about the incessant overuse of alarmism and FUD to get people to react. It's the blatant psychological manipulation. I hate that.
I notice you conveniently left the "year 2000 bug" government conspiracy that never came to fruition off your list. Every other denial supporting site includes it in their ranty list of government terrorism designed to keep us fearfully paying taxes etc. I expect you realise your audience here consists mostly of people who were paid large amounts and spent bucketloads of time and effort making sure 2000 problems never happened, and you'd trigger even more derision than you have with this conspiracy theory hocus pocus.
Like most FUD-merchants you repeatedly pedantically pick over the words of some one commenting on an issue rather than addressing the actual issue itself - because you have no *evidence of merit* to challenge the actual issue.
Picking apart the words of Prof. Phil Jones from a BBC interview or Audrey S. Thackeray here does not alter the fact that the BEST study (the most comprehensive and rigorous review of recent temperature data) showed that the planet continues to warm.
Add to this the recent NASA studies that demonstrate that it is non-condensing greenhouse gasses (CO2, methane, etc.) that are the major root cause of warming, in contrast to the amplifying effect of water vapour, and your alleged "open mind" is exposed for what it really is: denial by FUD.
I don't like that they've conflated the views on teaching evolution in science and not creationism with the "fact" of anthropogenic climate change.
One is a scientific theory versus a religious viewpoint, the other is an ongoing debate with much data still to be collected and analysed. Stifling the other side of the climate change discussion is not scientific and doing it in this way only helps rationalise certain people's view that the teaching evolution debate is somehow equally spun for an agenda.
(I'm not stating my stance on ACC/AGW, I'm just discussing National Center for Science Education)
Yes, I share that concern; they say
"Scientists overwhelmingly accept that the Earth is warming, that climate change is occurring, and that human activities have made a major contribution to these planetary changes."
Is that really true? There certainly seems to be less of a consensus than there is on evolution.
The only question is the last one of the three. It all hinges on what "a major contribution" is.
The last IPCC report summarized along the lines of human activity being likely responsible for most of the warming since 1950 (where most is >50% I believe). I think that most scientists do indeed agree with that and that kind of figure does support a "major contribution" by human activities.
I read that too, and went "oh 'Eck!". Because when organisations like "National Center for Science Education" get run out of town for their Warmist agenda, they will lose the ability to promote the really important things, like evolution, and even the basics of Rational education. Places like America (and indeed the UK) are already teetering on the edge of a descent into ignorance and superstition - we need scientific lobby groups to keep the woo-peddlers away from education!
"One is a scientific theory versus a religious viewpoint, the other is an ongoing debate with much data still to be collected and analysed." <- no it is NOT an ongoing debate. This is the bit people keep missing. The outcomes, the models etc will keep changing as new data is collected and analysed and new theories develop about where AGW will lead, but the fact of AGW is not in any doubt. 97% of climate scientists agree AGW is here and happening. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full
"Just goes to show, it doesn't pay to be honest if you've been dishonest. There's no leniency for having come clean it seems."
You're arguing there should be?
Fraud is fraud, receipt of stolen goods is receipt of stolen goods - no one else guilty of these crimes gets a pass because they admit it, they get convicted...
"Fraud is fraud, receipt of stolen goods is receipt of stolen goods - no one else guilty of these crimes gets a pass because they admit it, they get convicted..."
Yeah--well we'd like to think so.
If I--or most El Reg readers--committed this type of fraud then they'd lock us up and throw away the key.
Problem is there's far too many exceptions for those in the 'know', or who've 'special' contacts, or for certain types of crimes, or for crimes that suddenly metamorphose into misdemeanors when committed by the rich, the powerful or influential--or if you're a politician.
It's so rife that it's no wonder the honest have become cynical and the less-ethical also take such opportunities when offered them.
Without these short labels people would have to use impractically long "Those who accept X but don't accept Y" phrases all the time to identify positions (actually that might be better..)
There are long and pointless "debates" about what the best labels to use are and people try to invent new "better" ones all the time. "warmist" is a pretty standard polite one (compared to "alarmist" or even "eco--fascist")
He first received the data anonymously; at that point, he could have sent it to the media without checking. He checked that the data was factual by using somebody else's name, then sent it.
If this was a journalist instead of a scientist, hardly anybody would be surprised, let alone shocked. Had this been done by a denialist rather than a warmist, Lewis would be concentrating on the data rather than the leaker.
> He received the data anonymously
Hang on. So your saying a Heartland insider wrote a fake strategy document (containing detailed account information), he sends the fake document to Gleick - who then fraudulently obtains the actual accounts just to check the faked memo? Makes no sense. Why didn't the leaker supply the original documents? Why would a leaker write a half-arsed fake memo. I suspect there was no leaker. I suspect Gleick obtained the accounts (which show nothing untoward) and wrote the memo himself to spice up the story.
I'm sure lying cheating and smearing people with views differerent to your own is 'no big deal' to global warmists like you. Afterall - you think you're saving the world - who cares about the law?
> It only proves the document was scanned in after those other documents were obtained.
True dat. I trust Gleick will submit the original to the authorities as part of his defence when he's prosecuted for wire-fraud and libel.
Also notice that Gleick's carefully worded press statement neither confirms nor denies whether he wrote the fake memo: At no point does he say that the faked strategy paper was the anonymous document he received in the mail. One suspects his highly paid legal team are now dictating all his public statements with a view to his upcoming prosecution.
"If this was a journalist instead of a scientist, hardly anybody would be surprised, let alone shocked."
So you're completely unfamiliar with the ex-publication News of the World then? The Sun?
There's been a lot of investigations about journalists committing fraud and they've been getting in trouble if I'm not mistaken...
To my mind, the most significant claim in the original story was that Heartland's proposed curriculum materials were aimed at creating an environment that would dissuade teachers from teaching science.
Does Lewis not consider this an important issue, or is it an inconvenient fact that he wants to ignore, or does he dispute that this was Heartlands intention at all?
If Lewis doesn't consider this an important issue, then his own credibility would be severely damaged. It would mean that he has picked a side, and is willing to overlook anything that might make his "side" look bad.
Al, shame on you for pushing the lie. That particular document (that mentioned the dissuasion from teaching science) was faked. So far Gleick has not admitted being the faker, but it is possible that he in fact did, the prose bears a strange similarity to his writings.
Your credibility is completely undermined by your apparent insistence on "fake but accurate".
Al, I'm assuming you know the 'dissuade teachers from teaching science' smear came from the fake strategy document. There is nothing in the real documents to support this claim. On the contrary - it is the climate profiteers and greenpeace luddites who are seeking to brainwash school children with sickening climate change propaganda like DECC's 'Bedtime story' ad and the 10:10 'No Pressure' sceptic extermination video.
"To my mind, the most significant claim in the original story was that Heartland's proposed curriculum materials were aimed at creating an environment that would dissuade teachers from teaching science."
That was part of the faked document, not the genuine ones.
Heartland has said this numerous times. If you read the fake document it reads like a 5yo wrote it, very obviously faked...
"Heartland has said this numerous times. If you read the fake document it reads like a 5yo wrote it, very obviously faked..."
See this is the part that doesn't make sense. Why would he write a fake document knowing that everyone would find out it was fake? I am just saying this doesn't make a lot of sense either way.
>>This brings to mind a wamed up Plitdown man, only warmer. Check that classic aroma.
Piltdown! pour homme - the fragrance, the aroma of warm masculinity!
Cue arty, black and white advert with a neanderthol climbing out of the sea, shaking the water out of his hair, and kissing a supermodel.
Then clubbing her over the head, and dragging her back to his cave...
I'd recommend that you have a bit of a read of both "Climategate" archives and then make your mind up.
The HARRY_READ_ME.txt is well worth a look for anyone who is at all software biased, and you might want to do a bit of research into what the story is behind the "Mike's Nature trick ... to hide the decline" (hint: it does not refer “hiding the fact that global temperatures had been falling” – although that is what the BBC’s Environment Correspondent Richard Black and others have reported.
You might be surprised at what you learn ;-)
I don't care where or how it happens -- I've seen it in politics, religion, advertising, creationism, and AGW. Anybody who knowingly and deliberately ignores, fakes, or contradicts data in the process of spreading a Higher Truth is an enemy to all thinking humanity. We don't need our paths encumbered with the bones of Piltdown Man.
Why won't St AlGore debate the 'settled science' with Christopher Monckton, despite repeated invitations to do so? What is he afraid of?
Why doesn't mainstream media report the fact that pro-AGW science funding dwarfs the money received annually by sceptical (e.g. independent, non-governmental) climate science by some $3000 to $1, according to extensive research by Jo Nova and many others?
Why won't the fiercely pro-AGW BBC report on climate change with at least some pretence of balance and fair mindedness? Aren't they legally required to represent all views?
Why are the world's 'expert' pro-AGW climatologists, allegedly resorting to common theft to prove a point? Surely the science can speak for itself?
And so on.
Josh 16: "Why won't St AlGore debate the 'settled science' with Christopher Monckton".
Why would anyone want to debate with Monckton, who uses the Gish Gallop technique to drown his opponent in a torrent of half-truths, lies and straw man arguments?
It's time El Reg realised that pushing this agenda alienates many of their readers and sets them against each other. Stick to what you do well, and keep your politics to yourself.
"Why won't St AlGore debate the 'settled science' with Christopher Monckton, despite repeated invitations to do so?"
Probably because Monckton is an expert at spouting garbage at a rate of knots, the so called 'gish gallop' technique whereby it is impossible to respond to all of the points raised in the time allowed. Moreover, much of what he says is superficially convincing as he quotes scientific studies etc. It takes time to sift through all of that but people have done it and he has been thoroughly and comprehensively debunked. Incidentally, as well as being an expert on climate science, 'Lord' Monckton also claims to have discovered a cure for AIDS. The guy is a charlatan and whatever your views you don't want to associate yourself with him if you want to be taken seriously.
My thoughts exactly - if what they are saying is so utterly ridiculous then destroy them with facts.
If every credible scientist on the planet agrees then someone like Monckton (for example) should be swatted away with impunity surely? His arguments/claims are out there for all to see, why doesn't someone research them and blow him out of the water?
The fact they haven't, and choose to attack whether he's allowed to be called Lord (really, who gives a s##t what title he uses?) just makes him look right.
I don't understand this playing the man and not the ball in what is supposed to be a scientific debate.
"His arguments/claims are out there for all to see, why doesn't someone research them and blow him out of the water?"
As I said, people have done so. See the link that NomNomNom posted for example. Why didn't you know that? That's a serious question BTW and I am not necessarily blaming you. For all the talk of balance on this thread, a superficial web search will yield the vast majority of hits repeating the sort of claims that Monckton makes. If that is where people get most of their knowledge from and they are not prepared to dig deeper, it is not surprising that people such as him continue to be taken seriously.
"really, who gives a s##t what title he uses?"
Well the House of Lords wasn't too chuffed that he claimed to be a member and that he used a portcullis logo on his slides, reminiscent of that used for official House of Lords documents. Presumably this was to impress the Americans who attended his lectures and to lend him an air of authority that he does not in fact possess. His scientific credentials have been debunked and that hasn't got through to people like you, so I think it is fair enough to provide additional evidence that he is generally not to be trusted.
"For all the talk of balance on this thread, a superficial web search will yield the vast majority of hits repeating the sort of claims that Monckton makes."
So why aren't scientists putting up more articles debunking his points, and why do all the scientists run away when he invites them to debate? Seriously - smash him with facts at every turn, then he wont run any more debates or articles - why so scared?
Serious question - not being argumentative here - if he is as ridiculous as everyone says just wreck him with facts at every turn and he'll go away.
"His scientific credentials have been debunked"
Didn't think he had any (or even claimed to)? He only references others work doesn't he? There's lots of people on both sides commenting that aren't climate scientists. Pachuri is an Engineer and an Economist, but we're expected to take his words on behalf of the IPCC as scientific fact.
PS As Lord is an inherited/political title I didn't think that gave him any credibility in scientific circles, less in fact...
"So why aren't scientists putting up more articles debunking his points, and why do all the scientists run away when he invites them to debate? "
I thought I'd explained that but I'll have another go. The point is that he spouts such a large volume of nonsense that it takes time to debunk him systematically. People have done this but they have spent months chasing up his references etc. One of his favourite tactics is to quote some study that supports his point but when you actually go to the source it turns out he has completely misrepresented it. One of his debunkers even went to the trouble of contacting the authors of such papers. It takes a lot more time to do that than it does for him to write the stuff in the first place as he doesn't have to bother about whether it's true or not, just how well it comes across as a soundbite in his lectures.
Another point is that he can do this as his full time job. Scientists meanwhile usually have proper jobs doing science and there is only a certain amount of time they can devote to holding back the tide of ignorance.
There is also the matter I alluded to earlier which is that there are a lot of 'denialist' web sites and blogs out there. No one can control that so how do these people who are spending the time debunking Monckton ensure that their voices are heard above the noise?
"He only references others work doesn't he? "
There is more than one way to reference work as I mentioned above.
"PS As Lord is an inherited/political title I didn't think that gave him any credibility in scientific circles, less in fact..."
Once again, you miss the point. He doesn't seek credibility in scientific circles. It's public opinion he is after and as I said, his background and the trappings do give him authority (albeit spurious) with certain people.
"Why won't the fiercely pro-AGW BBC report on climate change with at least some pretence of balance and fair mindedness? Aren't they legally required to represent all views?"
All views!? Political correctness not only requires but demands exceptions. Silly.
Is this like how the "Climategate" emails were stolen and conveniently leaked just before Copenhagen? The anti science side have been on the attack for a decade or more. The pro science side are just catching up ;)
I think the problem is that climate scientists already had the rational debate. Now every contrarian wants to stick their ill-informed and illogical oar in as well.
Lewis being a perfect example... He seems to know better than the appointed experts on any subject he turns his keyboard to, no matter how un-related his actual qualifications, methods and experience are.
Frankly I'm guessing he's mates with the editor/owners of el Reg, he can hardly be here based on journalistic skills.
"Now every contrarian wants to stick their ill-informed and illogical oar in as well."
"Lewis being a perfect example..."
Stop shooting messengers!
If climate scientists had had open debates from the very beginning then there'd be much less angst about climate science and climate change generally.
There's sufficient evidence now to believe that many climate scientists are different to scientists in the more traditional sciences, chemistry etc. Climate scientists enter the profession more because they're on a mission to change the world etc. than having an interest in fundamental science, (evidence: this story, Climategate etc.). By dentition, this is politics.
Politics --> Machiavelli --> Secrecy --> Lies, deception, getting one's way etc.
Therefore: politics =/ science
Conclusion: climate scientists' politics [ethics, beliefs, religion] are a major cause of the climate change fiasco.
Get rid of the scientists altogether, instead put in gray cardigan-wearing engineers to solve the problem then climate change will become so boring that everyone will instantly forget about it.
Graham, surely you can't be *that* disingenuous as to straight-facedly state that Lewis hasn't already shown his colours? Really?
He's not a journalist - he's an editorialist. An opinion writer. With zero credentials on this subject. A well displayed propensity for cherry-picking and huge slant on everything he writes.
It's not an ad-hom nor is it shooting the messenger when it's:
a: Their own message
b: Been shown to be outrageously inaccurate
c: They have a history of selectively quoting others out of context.
Climate scientists did have open debates, symposia, journals (with actual peer reviewed papers) etc. Just because you weren't invited doesn't mean they're not transparent.
"Graham, surely you can't be *that* disingenuous as to straight-facedly state that Lewis hasn't already shown his colours?"
That's not the point I was making, whether he has or not is irrelevant. The fact we're all commentards about climate science/climate science is.
That climate science/change has become such a whipping boy and so detested by so many means that something has seriously gone wrong with that branch of science. I'm not referring to whether climate scientists are right/wrong or there's global warming or not, rather I'm referring to the continuous ongoing acrimony that surrounds the debate to the point where many I know simply turn off the news when the matter is mentioned--that's not in dispute.
I consider myself reasonably informed about the debate to the extent that this file
resides on this PC and I can tell you instantly it's 64,936,854 bytes long and I've trolled it extensively. Yet even I've begun to turn the news off whenever the damn subject is mentioned.
I'm old enough to remember when H-bombs where atmospherically detonated--as a colleague keeps offering to prove by testing my teeth for Sr-90--nevertheless, even ban-the-bomb marches, demos and debates never became so degraded and debased as the climate debate.
Arguably, the Cold War/MAD/Cuban missile crisis produced much more world tension than the climate debate, yet it was always clear what that debate was! Either you were for that old fascist mongrel, Edward Teller and the science he stood for or you opposed it. Even the bomb's most vociferous opponents never questioned the science, after all it was science and it damn-well worked.
Somehow, climate scientists have fucked the PR so badly that it'll take decades to recover from, even if the science were fully settled tomorrow.
In my lifetime, science as never had such a bad PR wrap from the general public as it has now.
As far as I'm concerned that's a tragedy.
That's because scientists do science. Huge amounts of money come from the fossil fuel industry to publicity companies and think tanks set up purely to combat the actual, real science so they can keep making a cheap buck. The denial of climate science is not rational, and saying the efforts of the FF lobby have worked on you doesn't mean the science changes. 97% of the worlds leading climate scientists agree AGW is proven and the 3% that disagree are statistically less qualified to judge. That not settled enough for you? Incredible we're still having this discussion indeed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract <- read it.
"scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. "
Which begs the question of how much of the "scientific prominence" of the "convinced" researchers is due to their relative ease in getting published in peer reviewed journals and there relationship with the editors of such journals.
IOW is their prominence (however that is measured) cause or effect of their publication history versus that of their "unconvinced" rivals.
Begging the question indeed :) All the journals -including university ones - the world over are excluding one poor discriminated against section of researchers just because they don't have a personal relationship with the editors. Or else they're being excluded because they don't meet the standards of proper science? Your call.
Newflash sherlock: Almost all scientists get into it hoping to do work that changes the world. Climate scientists ARE geologists, chemists, physicists etc. You cannot change the science with wishful thinking about the motives of scientists, and your "opinion" of their character is frankly irrelevant. Gnash your teeth all you like but until the anti side comes up with an actual scientific argument it's all so much politics.
The leaked material doesn't only reveal that "a warming-sceptic thinktank might in future release some educational materials". The documents also show that donors linked to fossil fuel interests are funding a so-called "thinktank" in order to finance prominent climate change deniers. No wonder the Heartland Institute and the selectively anti-science brigade are crying "fake". I'm not suggesting that Mr Page's cheque is in the post, but he never fails to spot the real vested interests in the defence and space industries, only in climate science. "Cui bono?"
"The documents also show that donors linked to fossil fuel interests are funding a so-called "thinktank" in order to finance prominent climate change deniers."
Yeah, a whole $7 million dollars.
WWF's climate change budget alone is close to $240 million. They spent over $60 million on educational materials alone last year (heartland's documents projected spending $200,000 on educational materials).
That's not even considering Greenpeace et al, and the billions (trillions?) spent by governments all around the world.
Not really the "well funded by big oil" skeptics we seem to always hear about. In Australia there was a cartoon with the PM screaming at her climate advocate "how come I'm paying you ten times as much as these guys and they're winning the debate?" LOL
"The documents .. included .. a short memo summarising some proposed climate advocacy which Heartland intended to undertake", elREG
"We are concerned that schools are teaching climate change issues in a manner that is not consistent with sound science and that is designed to lead students to the erroneous belief that humans are causing a global warming crisis"
"Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms"
"An Open Letter to the Heartland Institute"
Yea .. `warmist' ...
Contrary to the "doubt & controversy" line being pushed here, if you go to a University & speak to real scientists you'll find that they almost universally think it's real & are very very concerned about it.
Human civilization extinction- level concern about it, actually.
This is not a minor problem. Sea levels rising 3-5 meters in the first century, then to 20 meters, then to 30-50 meters will wipe out all coastal real estate, cites & vast amount of food production.
Nor is this based on 'modelling'. Sea-level predictions are based on PAST HISTORY of paleoclimate and CO2 levels. This is well established science. Search for 'paleoclimate CO2 sea level', etc.
"if you go to a University & speak to real scientists you'll find that they almost universally think it's real & are very very concerned about it."
So climate change is real eh? But so what?
When I was kid many decades long before any climate change controversy, my local science museum had a big wall chart showing the world's temperature going back a million or so years; incidentally, the present era seemed somewhere in the middle of the range.
Two things amazed me, the first was how anyone could figure out this historical info, and second that the world's temperature was up and down like a yo-yo.
We're in the middle of the range and temperature is creeping up slowly. Big deal, so what!
Who cares? Only the Doomsdayers, The Worry Brigade and vested interest who get paid.
SECOND: "scientist concerned about it". Of course they are because they're paid to be involved in the subject--their jobs depend on being 'interested' (and in that regard, a group of like-minded scientists is like a rabid committee).
As with committees--never, never form them unless you already know the answers beforehand because committees actually want to do things and THEN they'll insist on reporting on their work/findings AS IF THEIR WORK WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT EVER UNDERTAKEN--I know, I've been on too many of them over the years.
Bet on it, the IPCC won't be any different to any other committee in this regard. (And if you also put in politics then anything goes.)
Moreover, if one MUST have a committee it ought to be ad hoc; for when the job's done and its members are back at REAL work, then they've little axe to grind!
I'm sitting here in the middle of February, freezing my arse off. I'll take global warming ! Save on heating bills, no windshield frost, wear lighter jackets. Downside ? No polar bears ? Can do without them. Penguins ? Ditto. Sea level rising ? Surf Nebraska, baby - and fresher seafood. See - no downside. Bring on the GW. Can't come soon enough for me. Al Gore can take his GW Nazi style agenda and shove it where the GW will never touch it.
It appears that he received an anonymous letter relating to Heartland which apparently provided him with sufficient information to do a social engineering job to get real financial documents.
Hmmm, very interesting. Who sent the original letter? Someone with detailed knowledge of the internals of Heartland. probably.
Yeah right - an anonymous letter written in Gleick's own style, using his favourite phrases. A letter that bizarrely bigs up Gleick as 'prominent'. A letter which no one else received. A letter which, refers to details of the Heartland accounts documents which Gleick claims he only subsequently purloined. A letter which he carefully refused to deny he wrote in his press statement. Yeah perhaps the global warming fairies wrote it. Seems unlikely that Gleick's wrote it himself to sex-up his innocuous dossier.
I sat and read http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm . What about the allegation that measurements of surface temperature are either badly controlled or have been subject to mysterious upward correction factors?
The problem with us ordinary types trying to verify the claims of the Climate scientists is that we begin to wonder if we can trust the published data. This is why people are sceptical of the "established view", because those of us who know what science is suspect that the stuff in the papers (and children's text books, grr) is not actually science, but advocacy.
So Evolution (vs. Creationism) and Climate Warming are .... linked? Where's the connection?
Evolution states that everything in the biome is in constant change. And that, according the religion of Secular Evolution, is a Good Thing.
Climate Warming states that everything in the biome is getting warmer. Another way of putting it is, it's in constant change. And that, according to the religion of Climate Warming, is a Bad Thing.
I see inconsistency here. If change is both GOOD and BAD, then at least one belief system is wrong. Maybe both are. But it's impossible for both to be right. 'Nuff said.
Pass me my coat, please. Mine's the one with the tomato on the lapel.
The current BBC Science Editor, appointed in January 2012 is a chap by the name of David Shukman. Prior to this appointment, Shukman was the Climate and Environment advisor to the BBC news service.
Before making this appointment, the BBC did not have a science editor at all. The BBC had no clear agenda or regulation that constrained their science reporting, and were not under any law or government directive to "sing from a particular songsheet". This allowed them a large degree of latitude when it came to making science programming; a given program could be as biased as it wished to be in any direction it so desired.
The appointment of the position of Science Editor for the BBC arose from a BBC Trust review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science, which found much to praise but also much to criticise, including an apparent bias towards pro-AGW and climate related articles in general. Link to the report follows, be warned; it's a PDF, and a big one. (but quite an enlightening read).
However, Shukman is set to change the de facto lack of bias in the BBC and apply an agenda all of his own to future programming. In one of his opening statements (on Radio 4) Shukman said that there will be less airtime given to "minority scientific views" and that programming "must follow the scientific consensus, especially on matters such as climate change."
Some more info follows:
Isn't this supposed to be a Sci Tech site? You've got it half right. You've seriously dropped in the estimation of ... well everyone really after reading this line"
"a firmly warmist position" - warmist? Really? Is that like rapist, terrorist, racist etc? Amazing Reg. I remember when you used to be cool.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019