THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Re following up the FOI issue, a commenter on one of the WUWT threads called Pragmatic suggested contacting Chancellor Sir Brandon Gough at UEA in writing and sending a copy to Charles Clarke (MP for Norwich South and former Home Secretary), adding to the call for an investigation; seems like a good idea to me.
Also on the FOI topic, there’s a very good guest post by Willis Eschenbach here on the Omniclimate blog.
Geoff, I think your comments in CiF about journalists are highly relevant. I wasn’t particularly surprised to find the print and broadcast media rather slow to run with this story, or that they frustratingly miss the point at times; however, what has struck me is the seeming absence of anyone in the traditional media able to demonstrate a fraction of the tenacity shown by Steve McIntyre or David Holland in their quest to get to the truth. I’m starting to wonder whether journalists still do all that old-style investigative stuff, or is it mostly up to the bloggers, these days?
The Guardian site (George Monbiot, “Global Warming Rigged?”) has been closed for comments after barely 24 hours.
Is this a record?
Hiding evidence of global cooling
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/
“Climate Gate” Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/climate-gate-development-cei-f
Alex Cull
Your question about the role of reporters and journalists of the mainstream media (MSM) versus bloggers raises a basic point.
With a few notable exceptions the MSM has sold out to the PC (mainstream) view on climate change.
The mainstream scientific journals have done the same, as have the venerable scientific organizations, such as the RS, NAS, etc.
Essentially all of the dialogue on this topic is to be found in the blogosphere.
The MSM has become irrelevant as regards the AGW debate.
Are the mainstream scientific journals and venerable scientific organizations headed down the same path by stifling rational scientific skepticism and selling out to the multi-billion dollar PC mainstream view?
Max
Alex:
If you want to understand how the news that you consume is made these days, I cannot recommend Nick Davies ‘Flat Earth News’ strongly enough. Written by a lifetime Guardian journalist who really values the standards of his profession he is utterly ruthless in condemning modern practices and pointing out how easy it is for lobby groups to hijack the news agenda. He is particularly good on the eNGOs with regard to Chernobyl and AGW. Well worth getting out of the library.
Alex (#8426) asks whether investigative journalism is dead. In fact Monbiot is an excellent practitioner of the black art, but as soon as the sun rises the warmth gets to him and he has to retire to his belfry. I suspect he’s carving out a new position for himself as the gadfly in the warmist camp. Think tents and micturation.
Manacker (#8427) wonders about comments closing on Monbiot’s article. It’s standard practice at the Guardian now to close comments at sunset. The moderators presumably belong to the same coven as Monbiot.
I’ve posted at Climate Resistance, suggesting that it would be good to have specific threads at the few English blogs where we could sound off. Many of the legal, political, and social implications are specifically English, and we need a space where these can be discussed, without being swamped by trolls or well-meaning colonials who don’t understand our typically English way of dealing with things (i.e. cringing in a corner and hoping the problem will go away).
At the moment, it seems likely the subject will burst into the open in the US, in the Senate or in the Republican press. What a comment on the state of political and social debate in England!
Yes, ClimateGate appears to be growing.
Was it simply the arrogant misbehavior of a handful of the top scientific IPCC contributors and spokesmen for the AGW premise, who should be slapped on the hands as George Monbiot opined in the Guardian thread that was closed after less than 24 hours?
Or is the problem a deeper one?
The current mainstream premise is that anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW), caused principally by human CO2 emissions, represents a potentially serious threat to our environment, other species and human society.
Have the recent developments shown that this premise is based on manipulated scientific data and is therefore invalid?
This question should be at the very top of the Copenhagen agenda.
All proposed policy changes should be put on ice until this point can be clarified beyond any doubt.
Max
To show what I mean about the feebleness of the English blogosphere:
The UEA statement, together with Jones’s defence, is published at WUWT, with 124 comments so far. The Guardian carries an “exclusive” interview with Jones, which is simply a rehash of his statement on the University website, which links to the UEA statement – 68 comments, of which 16 have been removed.
Did any of those Guardian commenters point out the absurdity of the University announcing that it would conduct an impartial investigation of the affair, and on the same website allowing Jones to justify himself in the most pathetically feeble manner? We shall never know.
An English sceptic who wants to express his opinion to more than a dozen likeminded people has to cross the Atlantic like some latterday Tom Paine. (Anyone here know who he was?)
Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183
The perfect Christmas gift for your green friends.
http://www.cafepress.com.au/hidethedecline
Tonyb
And if they already have that one here is another
http://www.printfection.com/stupidityoffsets/Stupidity-Offsets-T-Shirt-C-2-sided-whitelight/_p_2181283
The “C-word”
Rational skeptics of the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is a potential serious threat, have pointed out that there are serious flaws in the science allegedly supporting this premise.
Believers in the AGW premise have countered with the statement that it would require a massive conspiracy (the “C-word”) for the vast majority of mainstream scientists, most scientific bodies, most of the governments of this world plus most of the media to all support a basically false cause. As it is not logical to assume that such a massive conspiracy exists, the cause must be correct and, more importantly, based upon sound science.
A counterargument made by many (including Peter Taylor in his book, “Chill”) is that this need not be a “conspiracy” as such, but simply a “collusion” of interests (another “C-word”).
But as ClimateGate is showing, there are several “C-words” that come to mind:
We have witnessed a conspicuous connivance within a cabal of confused climate crackpots, prone to craftiness and corruption, to conjure a virtual computer-created catastrophe to support the cockamany concept of carbon caps.
When their cunning contrivance was exposed as a contemptible confidence game by a clever and courageous computer-code cracker, the culprits attempted a major coverup to conceal their counterfeisance.
Conclusion: It’s a colossal cockup.
con•spir•a•cy k n-spîr -s )
n. pl. con•spir•a•cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
________________________________________
[Middle English conspiracie, from Anglo-Norman, probably alteration of Old French conspiration, from Latin c nsp r ti , c nsp r ti n-, from c nsp r tus, past participle of c nsp r re, to conspire; see conspire.]
conspiracy [k?n?sp?r?s?]
n pl -cies
1. a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act, esp with political motivation; plot
2. the act of making such plans in secret
conspirator n
conspiratorial [k?n?sp?r??t??r??l], conspiratory adj
conspiratorially adv
Noun 1. conspiracy – a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
confederacy
conspiracy of silence – a conspiracy not to talk about some situation or event; “there was a conspiracy of silence about police brutality”
agreement, understanding – the statement (oral or written) of an exchange of promises; “they had an agreement that they would not interfere in each other’s business”; “there was an understanding between management and the workers”
2. conspiracy – a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
cabal
plot, secret plan, game – a secret scheme to do something (especially something underhand or illegal); “they concocted a plot to discredit the governor”; “I saw through his little game from the start”
Gunpowder Plot – a conspiracy in 1605 in England to blow up James I and the Houses of Parliament to avenge the persecution of Catholics in England; led by Guy Fawkes
political science, politics, government – the study of government of states and other political units
3. conspiracy – a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose
confederacy
band, circle, lot, set – an unofficial association of people or groups; “the smart set goes there”; “they were an angry lot”
coconspirator, conspirator, machinator, plotter – a member of a conspiracy
Max you wrote in 8427:
Back in July 09, I enquired of Real Climate (RC) what their policy was with thread comment duration, and Gavin responded in Email to me:
It is thus interesting to compare the hot-topic RC thread:
The CRU hack — [authored by] group @ 20 November 2009
I speculate that its lead article was word-smithed by Gavin after group consultation with Mike E. Mann and sensibly with others, including Phil Jones/CRU.
Regardless, of whom were in the group, I was amazed by the concurrences and admissions contained therein.
Subsequently, there seems to have been some mia culpa, because the thread was closed after a mere ~52 hours thus:
AHA! The Gavin goalposts have been moved! I wonder why?
Its hardly scientific but I think satire has a big part to play-especially in the media.(remember Orwell’s Animal Farm)
Warning-put down your coffee cup before you view this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/must-see-video-climategate-spoof-from-minnesotans-for-global-warming/
Tony
Has any one else noticed this?
I have an RSS button for RealClimate on my browser toolbar that lists the ten most recent posts, updated in real-time. There are also other RSS buttons for CA, HS, WUWT and Bishop Hill. The RC listing hasn’t updated since the CRU hack story broke, so their posts dealing with that do not appear. All the other RSS buttons are working normally.
Bob_FJ
I’ve lobbed in a few firecrackers on the RC site and its precursor. So far all but one have been censored out.
But, ignoring the usual RC-groupies who are still sticking their heads in the sand and insisting “the science is settled”, there are many posters who feel that this expose has been a game changer for the AGW debate.
From here on out more transparency will be required. The arrogant “it’s correct because I said so” approach will no longer work. In short, the AGW crowd (and climate science in general) have suffered a massive loss of confidence as a result of this exposé.
As one poster put it: “the record is bad and the perception is even worse”.
Sort of sums it up.
Max
Hi Max
Climategate It is starting to get some limited traction over here in the MSM but the BBC-still a prime source of news-have been reporting everything except climategate with a few ad hoc exceptions.
I’m not sure there has been any effect on those who matter-the politicians- so we need to keep the pressure up. My latest piece is referenced under.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/triplets-on-the-hudson-river/#comments
It’s interesting how many climatic cycles are evident pre 1850/80 but Hansen and Jones makes little mention of them. My next study will look at a variety of temperature related data and official statements supporting them. The conclusions are mine.
1 The UK Met office-a prime contributor through the Hadley centre to the IPCC assessments, assert:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html
Extract “Before the twentieth century, when man-made greenhouse gas emissions really took off, there was an underlying stability to global climate. The temperature varied from year to year, or decade to decade, but stayed within a certain range and averaged out to an approximately steady level.”
Conclusion: This is clearly incorrect as there is proof of considerable cyclical variability
IPCC FAQ 6.2 Page114 of TAR4.
‘All published reconstructions find that temperatures were warm during medieval times, cooled to low values in the 16th 17th 18th 19th centuries, then warmed rapidly after that.’
Conclusion. This assertion can not be supported-there were periods nearly as warm as today as well as very cold periods. Current warming is slow and consistent with previous periods in the observed climatic cycles.
3 This was the IPCC take on the urban heat island effect (UHI) in 2001;
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm
Clearly, the urban heat island effect is a real climate change in urban areas, but is not representative of larger areas. Extensive tests have shown that the urban heat island effects are no more than about 0.05°C up to 1990 (from 1900) in the global temperature records used in this chapter to depict climate change. Thus we have assumed an uncertainty of zero in global land-surface air temperature in 1900 due to urbanisation, linearly increasing to 0.06°C (two standard deviations 0.12°C) in 2000.
In the IPCC statement (SPM 2007, page.5): “Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans).”
Conclusion; This assertion can not be substantiated, clearly the UHI effect is real and considerable and as more of the locations that contain temperature data used in the ‘global temperature’ reconstruction becomes urbanised, the real UHI effect is considerably greater than is allowed for.
Tonyb
From the Daily Mail (UK)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html
Same as CRU……………disgraceful.
NZ’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html
The Day The Science Died…
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/the-biggest-scandal-of-all-is-this.html
Michael Mann, of “hockey stick” fabrication fame, wrote this email:
Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…
From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: Crap Papers
Date: Thu Feb 26 15:59:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
Just agreed to review a paper for GRL – it is absolute rubbish. It is having a go at the CRU temperature data – not the latest vesion, but the one you used in MBH98 !! We added lots of data in for the region this person says has Urban Warming ! So easy review to do.
Sent Ben the Soon et al. paper and he wonders who reviews these sorts of things. Says GRL hasn’t a clue with editors or reviewers. By chance they seem to have got the right person with the one just received.
Can I ask you something in CONFIDENCE – don’t email around, especially not to Keith and Tim here. Have you reviewed any papers recently for Science that say that MBH98 and MJ03 have underestimated variability in the millennial record – from models or from some low-freq proxy data. Just a yes or no will do. Tim is reviewing them – I want to make sure he takes my comments on board, but he wants to be squeaky clean with discussing them with others. So forget this email when you reply.
Cheers
Phil
[This email is dated 2004. TonyN]
The Faked New Zealand Temperatures…..
And The Actual New Zealand Temperatures……
You guys know I brought this up last year and this guy writes a paper about it and robs all my glory!
More Critique Of NCAR Cherry Picking Temperature Record Study
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_Critique_Of_Ncar_Cherry_Picking_Tempeature_Record_Study.pdf
Warwick Hughes shows how Jones put bias in Australian Temperatures
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=317