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.
Brute (9339-9341)
The North Pole surfacing of the USS Skate at the end of winter (March 17, 1959) is a real thorn in the side for devout AGW-believers. Much more so, actually, that the later surfacing of several submarines in August.
End-August the Arctic sea ice is patchy, and local conditions could have made the ice at the pole thin or patchy enough fur submarines to surface.
But March 17? At the end of winter? The warmists hate this fact. They try to deny it (despite confirmation in US Navy archives and a National Geographic article by the Skate’s captain at the time).
Bob_FJ and I have had heated discussions on this topic on warmist sites with the “faithful” coming up with all kinds of convoluted theories to try to discredit this photo and the event. WUWT showed it once, and there were howls of outrage on the pro-AGW sites that Watts was using phony data.
But it happened and was commemorated for posterity on a photo.
On March 17, 1959, at the end of the winter freeze season, the North Pole ice was patchy and thin enough for a submarine, the USS Skate to surface.
This would not have been possible on March 17, 2008 (or 2009), and will probably not be possible this March 17, either.
So much for the current unprecedented and disastrous loss of Arctic sea ice, which will soon lead to the demise of polar bears.
Another AGW petard, as I am sure Peter will agree, once he thinks about it a bit.
Max
Brute’s link #9350 from the American Thinker has correctly spotted the media story behind the science story, when it says:
“This is a great story. It has everything a media outlet could desire; scandal, conflict of interest .. government cover ups – why then, has this .. not been making any news at all in the United States?
“It’s too easy to simply claim “bias.” Media outlets don’t pass up juicy stories that could potentially increase their readership and revenue for ideological purposes…”
Exactly. Media outlets don’t pass up juicy stories for ideological purposes, when the ideology is political, ie rational.
This is classic “man bites dog”, and even the British media is trying to push “dog bites man again, and it’s worse than we thought…”
Robin (9332)
Yes, a classical case.
The student is also one of the “2500 scientists” cited by Pachauri. So we have not only “enhanced greenhouse warming”, we have “enhanced greenhouse qualifications” here.
I’ve noticed that PeterM is getting increasingly nasty. Is the stress of seeing his religious belief crashing around his ears taking its toll? I hope not. It has always been interesting sparring with him. But he keeps waffling on the “empirical data” issue (and rightly so, as there is none).
Max
Geoff,
RE: #9352
Please elaborate.
Why is the American media ignoring the salacious stories arising from Climate-gate, Glacier-gate, Pachuri-gate?
Newspapers & Television editors/producers possess ethics and moral standards beneath child molesters……why are they turning their noses up at these stories?
geoffchambers
the British media is trying to push “dog bites man” again
Could it be that the MSM editors (who screen what gets published) were themselves bitten by a mad dog (called “PC”) and the symptoms of the final stages of madness are beginning to become apparent?
Max
Robin,
I think someone is going to have to talk Peter down from the ledge. Will you volunteer?
I’m afraid he’s about to leap off as all hope is lost.
(If nothing else I’ve leaned a new British curse word/pejorative).
Brute
Some possible answers:
– several hundred billion dollars fueling AGW
– loss of face (i.e. admitting they fell for AGW)
– ideology (i.e. socialistic or anti-industrial bias)
– blind support of the administration and its liberal agenda
– political correctness
– outright stupidity
In your country, it appears that Fox is the only network that is covering the unraveling of AGW. At the same time, Fox now has the all-time highest ratings while their competitors (especially the pro-AGW, liberal networks) are losing ground with the public.
(Now Peter would throw in a snide remark that this only proves how unscientific and “anti-Darwinian” the US public is, but he is missing the point.)
The MSM networks and papers that ignore the unraveling of AGW and try to keep the AGW myth alive (despite all that is happening) are only committing slow suicide.
Maybe the MSM is the next to require a “federal bailout to save the First Amendment” – what do you think?
Max
All valid points Max!
I’d add that Madison Avenue has a hand in this thing. The media is making money from “green” advertising. The advertising sponsors couldn’t very well continue to run scare mongering ads or promote their “green” products on a venue that exposes the entire purpose for creating the products as a hoax.
Oh what a tangled web they weave when they practice to deceive……Shameful, just shameful………
President Barry Obumbler is already talking about this……..Most (Liberal) media outlets are failing miserably.
PeterM and Robin
After following your recent exchange I believe I see a disconnect.
Robin asks Peter to provide “empirical scientific data” to support his premise that AGW is a serious threat.
First Peter responds, “check the IPCC report; it’s all in there”.
Robin repeats his request for “empirical scientific data”, as he has not found this in the IPCC report.
Peter asks Robin, “what empirical scientific data do you want?”
Robin replies that any “empirical scientific data” that proves Peter’s AGW premise is OK.
Peter again asks, “what empirical scientific data do you want?”, and adds “if you can’t even tell me what you want, then you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about”.
Robin reiterates that any “empirical scientific data” that might prove Peter’s AGW premise is OK; Peter should choose that “empirical scientific data” with which he is most content.
This appears to anger Peter, who apparently has not been given such open choices in the past and possibly requires more “structure” in order to feel less insecure. So Peter attacks Robin as a “nincompoop” (or Aussie/Brit equivalent) and the exchange deteriorates.
Psychologically this is an interesting exchange. I have witnessed similar exchanges between skeptics and religious fundamentalists who are trying to defend a claim (for example, “creationism”).
First response to a request for scientific evidence from a skeptic, like Robin, is to simply refer him to the Bible – “it’s all in there”.
Repeated requests get answers like those we have seen from Peter, and the discussion finally breaks down on an emotional, rather than rational, level.
Is this similarity simply coincidental?
Or has the premise (that AGW is a serious threat) become a religious belief, which no longer requires support by “empirical scientific data” but can be accepted on “faith” alone?
Max
Brute #9354
asks me why the American media are ignoring the Climategate story. I know nothing about the American media, except that, being local, it’s less prone to the pressures of direct competition which the British media (essentially national) are subject to. It is impossible for the Guardian to ignore totally a story featured in the Telegraph, while I imagine the NYT can choose to ignore a story in the Houston Chronicle without fear of losing readers.
The American Thinker, by raising the question I quoted at #9352, seems implicitly to reject the explanations offered by Manacker at #9357, all of which are sensible, and any one of which may play a role in an individual instance, but which can’t explain the overall avoidance of a story which is bound to go viral one day. No journalist deliberately avoids a scoop, even if there’s a potential conflict with a potential advertiser, or with the PC opinions of the editor.
Take Manacker’s example of “ideology (i.e. socialistic or anti-industrial bias)” as a possible reason to kill the Climategate story. No doubt there are socialists, Marxists, Trotskyists, etc. working on the essentially very centrist NYT, Guardian or Independent. It is inconceivable that they would try to kill an unfavourable story about Hugo Chavez, say. It couldn’t happen, because they know that they would be ridiculed, voted down by their non-socialist colleagues. The same would hold for Zionists, Keynesians – any belief system you care to name. Similarly, I’m sure I could have an intelligent, rational argument about politics with Brute or Manacker and learn something. I wouldn’t agree, but debate would happen.
Not so for warmists. It is not possible that all journalists on the Guardian or NYT are convinced by the scientific evidence for AGW. So what’s going on? Neither money, not political correctness, nor stupidity can explain this. Maybe we’ll learn more when the wall finally crumbles.
Meanwhile, here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/david-king-climate-emails-speculation
is a story killing the Independent’s scoop about Chinese hackers and Moscow spies. Though it’s featured on Guardian Environment, the two authors are the investigations executive editor and the technology editor. Could the Guardian be finally about to perform some internal climate auditing?
Max, Brute and Robin
I think Peter labours under the delusion that the IPCC is an independent scientifically based organisation that rigorously examines peer reviewed material before incorporating it in its reports. Sadly, this is not the case. I have compiled the following handy ‘cut out and keep guide’ to their activities, culled from a number of contributors.
“The IPCC are a United Nations body set up to study man made climate change. This short paper provides some background information to their activities.
1) The IPCC assessment of climate change-known as AR4
Several people have been sceptical about the 3000 pages often cited as the size of the IPCC AR4.
The report weighs in at around 1000 pages for Working Group 1 (WG1) Cause
840 pages for Working Group 2-Impacts (WG2)
800 pages for Working Group 3-Mitigation and response. (WG3). There is also a synthesis report at 50 pages and a summary for policy makers included within the relevant report, so around 2700 pages in total, which includes addendum
There are vast numbers of references, guidance, errata, summaries, contents, index and contributors listed (as they should be) In the paleo-climate section this sort of material consisted of some 16 out of 50 pages.
This was a high ratio, but other Chapters are close to it, so around 25% appears to be non technical material (although essential for a report of this size so it has a proper structure).
The actual technical pages of AR4 therefore consists of around 2000 plus pages.
The number of working scientists involved is rather more debatable, as WG2 and 3 have numerous non scientists, including representatives from Oxfam and Greenpeace, plus Insurance assessors, Bankers, Engineers etc. All relevant to their working group content, but certainly not scientists.
(Tonyb)
2) Number of scientists and others involved with the Assesments
The IPCC working groups consisted of 850+ contributing authors, 400+ leading authors, and around 2,500 scientific reviewers. Dr. William Schlesinger, IPCC Lead Author and former dean at Duke University, quantified the reviewers as “something in the order of 20 percent had some dealing with climate.” The numbers cited above are somewhat inflated. Many reviewers served on two or more working groups. The IPCC added all members of all three working groups without subtracting duplicate names.
The working groups broke down as follows:
Working Group I – Causes and future forecasts of climate change. This group consisted of approximately 600 scientific reviewers.
Working Group II – Impacts of climate change?
Working Group III – Response strategies.
Collectively WG II and III consisted of around 1,900 scientific reviewers.
What were the methodologies of the review process? Only 308 of the official IPCC experts commented on the final draft before release to government organizations. Of the 308, only five commented on all 11 chapters.
Only 62 reviewers commented on the pivotal Chapter 9 – the chapter that spelled doom and gloom. Eight of these were representatives of governments, 55 had vested interests in the report because they were the authors and were working under government funding focused on establishing human activities as the basis of global warming. Only one (1) scientist actually endorsed the worst case projections of Chapter 9 and 11!
The “Summary for Policy Makers” (SPM) was a shorter condensed version of the IPCC report intended to present the findings and recommendations of the IPCC to government policy makers. A total of 51 subject matter experts worked on the SPM – 33 of them drafting authors and 18 contributing authors. The SPM was drafted at a governmental plenary session attended mostly by government representatives and representatives of environmental organizations.
The SPM was signed by 51 individuals. According to IPCC lead author, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, the SPM “represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nation’s Kyoto representatives), rather than scientists.”
Significant changes to the main science content of the reports were made to the SPM after the reviewed work was submitted. As one IPCC official put it “it was necessary to ensure consistency.”
The SPM is presented as the body of scientific consensus of thousands of the world’s foremost climate scientists. The facts are approximately 10 climate scientists around the world actually reviewed the IPCC report and endorsed it to varying degrees. Only one agreed with the dire predictions of Chapter 9 and 11. Most others were government officials, sociologists, and other non-climate related scientists. The greatest majority were getting paid by government grant money.
For more in-depth reading, there is an excellent analysis of the IPCC 4AR WG 1. A PDF of the paper can be downloaded at http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf
(Hank Hancock)
3) Are all Contributed Papers peer reviewed?
I think the point of referencing the size of the report is that an argument is being made that these types of mistakes are representative of the entire report, both here and by Dr. North. By Ms. Laframboise’s count, there are about 20 citations of WWF papers. That’s likely fewer than 5% of the report’s cited sources. So these sources are not representative. If they are not, the mistakes they involved are not representative either.
That said, the report should not contain any such non peer-reviewed papers. The fact that it does contain a very small proportion, however, does not by any standard of reference call its other observations and conclusions into question. There is an entirely different debate for that.
(Willis Eschenbach)
4) Additional Note-What constitutes IPCC ‘peer reviewed’ documents?
From the IPCC’s Procedures (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/IPCC%20Procedures.pdf): “[The IPCC will use] peer reviewed and internationally available scientific technical and socio-economic literature, manuscripts made available for IPCC review and selected non peer-reviewed literature produced by other relevant institutions including industry”
Note the words ‘non peer reviewed’ and ‘selected.’ Such items may include papers from campaigning organisations such as Greenpeace and WWF.
(Tonyb)
5) Does the Ippc follow its own procedures for inclusion of papers?
The problem is that the IPCC does not follow its own stated procedures. The inclusion of non peer-reviewed papers is just one part of that. Other parts (among many) are the ridiculous responses to the reviewer’s comments, the denial of valid peer-reviewed papers, the secrecy in what is supposed to be a “transparent” process, the exclusion of certain scientists who hold opposing views. Of these, the “review process” is the most egregious.
Here’s the theoretical review procedure. The draft is circulated. Reviewers comment on the draft. Their comments are either included in the final report, or are responded to by the author in question. All comments and responses are published.
Here’s the real review procedure. The draft is circulated. Reviewers comment on the draft. Their comments are either ignored without response from the author, or it is claimed that their comments were included in the final version … except they aren’t included. All comments and responses are kept secret.
I truly don’t see how that is anything less than a huge problem. The peer-review issue is only the tip of the iceberg, a small part of an organization-wide failure to follow its own guidelines. As a result, we end up with a political statement rather than a scientific statement … double-plus ungood, as they say in “1984?.
For example, in the glacier debacle, the lead author of the section said that he knew that the WWF paper wasn’t peer reviewed, but he kept it in anyhow:
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
So you see, the issue is that it’s not just an accidental mistake that 5% of the sources are junk. The issue is that there is a pervasive belief that the job of the IPCC is to “impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take concrete action”. What does that have to do with science? That is politics and persuasion to push a fore-ordained conclusion, and it is about as far from science as you can get. It is the IPCC-wide delusion that they are an advocacy body that is the problem, not the 5% non peer-reviewed papers. The IPCC sees its job as pushing the scare, and they are not about to let facts get in the way.
(Jack Straw)
6) Funding of major contributors
The British Government, through a varietry of State funded organisations such as the Hadley Centre and Cru are thought to be the single biggest financial contributor to the IPCC and also supply much of its data. Other funders include private and state organisations, some by way of expertise, others by actual funds. The following is a list of those who help to fund CRU.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
Extract; “This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International,…………”
(Tonyb)
Compiled February 1st 2010. Thanks to those who provided the material that has been included and attributed here. Tonyb
All:
I think we should have sympathy for PeterM – after all, he’s been bravely holding up the alarmist banner here on his own for a long time. So now to see, as Max puts it, “his religious belief crashing around his ears” must be extraordinarily painful. To realise, after referring to the “overwhelming evidence” supporting dangerous AGW for so long, that there is probably no evidence at all must (shall we say?) be difficult. But I hope he doesn’t jump off Brute’s ledge. And somehow I doubt that he will.
BTW I’ve been in London most of today, partly for a 2 hour root canal session. After Peter’s abuse this morning, it was relatively pleasant. So thanks, Peter. And, therefore, in an attempt at reconciliation (and Brute you’ll see from that Wikipedia link that git can “often be used affectionately between friends”), I’ll respond to Peter’s 9338.
PeterM:
Most oddly, you reject Darwin as an example of “one of the worlds scientists” who have verified his hypothesis by reference to empirical evidence. (Surely you’re not a closet creationist?) Then you accuse me of maintaining that scientific determination of the dangerous AGW hypothesis is not possible and say I’m not interested in hearing answers. On the contrary, I am most interested. The problem is that you have yet to provide any.
So, to help you out (you still seem to be struggling to understand the concept of empirical evidence), let’s get back to your request for examples of the world’s scientists who have made use of empirical evidence. That’s not difficult: empirical evidence is the cornerstone of the Scientific Method. Or perhaps you’re unaware of that? Examples? Well, how about Ibn al-Haitham, Galileo, Newton and Herschel? But, no, you won’t accept these – they died before even I was born. So is Einstein good enough for you? Perhaps not. Or the researchers who established the Aids/HIV and smoking/cancer links? But they’ve been mentioned many times before and seem to be of no interest to you. (Don’t say you’re an Aids refusenik and/or are secretly funded by “big tobacco”? No, surely not.) So let’s get up to date – how about the researchers hoping to identify the Higgs boson (a hypothetical particle of matter which, if it exists, will help to explain the origin of mass in the universe)? Computer models have long established that, in theory, it should exist (beginning to see the parallels here, Peter?) but are the scientists involved satisfied with that? No – they want empirical, testable evidence. So, to confirm or refute it’s existence (note “refute”), they have set up an extraordinarily expensive series of experiments using the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva.
That’s how real science is done. In contrast, the proponents of the dangerous manmade global warming hypothesis are saying in effect: “it’s difficult to establish the evidence that confirms or refutes the validity of our hypothesis, so let’s ignore the absence of evidence, assume it’s valid anyway and persuade politicians to impose huge additional burdens on our already shattered economies”.
Get it now?
I think the MSM in North America is not covering the story becuse most North Americans are not really interested in climate change. It’s too complicated to cover easily and Tiger Woods is much more interesting. Fox News likes to cover it though because it riles up their base.
However things are starting to change. This front page article in the Guardian today sounds like it could have been written by a sceptic blog.
TonyB
Thanks for your very comprehensive explanation of why the IPCC process has failed (9362).
You mention the obvious problems, starting with its very brief, its mission statement, its organization, its funding, its peer review procedures and its processes in general.
But, Tony, I believe that much more that was rotten.
These may be symptoms or effects of the root causes you listed but here are a few.
AGW has become a big business with hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars and the enormous power that comes with such obscene amounts of taxpayer money at stake. It is common knowledge that the possibility to cash in when large amounts of money are involved can corrupt.
Through its myopic brief (to study anthropogenic causes affecting our climate) it has lost sight of and downplayed natural factors, which have driven the changes in our planet’s climate throughout the past.
This has extended itself to its eager embracing of the seriously flawed “Mann et al. hockey stick”, without even making sure it was based on sound science, simply because it “proved” the rather far-fetched concept IPCC wanted to sell, i.e. that anthropogenic factors have been the principal cause for all observed climate change of the past 1,300 years.
In addition, IPCC has systematically ignored, rejected or refused to accept as correct many scientific studies, which did not support its AGW story. These range from studies on ice cap mass balances to those on distortion of surface temperature records due to the urban heat island effect.
Then there is the blatantly “bad” science in the IPCC reporting of past sea level trends, the out-and-out fabrications in recent “severe weather events” and the many unsupported claims on past changes in snow cover, humidity trends, etc.
The projections for the future are even more one-sided. While conceding that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”, IPCC accepts and publishes GCM estimates that all show a strongly positive feedback. At the same time IPCC ignores observations, which show that atmospheric relative humidity has decreased with warming, and makes purely theoretical projections of increased water vapor content with warming instead. A purely hypothetical climate-carbon cycle feedback is conjured up out of nowhere to further exaggerate future warming projections.
How did this whole process get so rotten and corrupted?
While the objections by skeptics are now being vindicated, I’m sure that future historians will shake their heads in disbelief that the civilized world could fall for something so obviously flawed.
Max
Max asked
“How did this whole process get so rotten and corrupted?”
I think the IPCC process always started out as a largely political construct, but with a reasonably sound basis in science that there might be a change in the climate which superficially might be due to man.
An examination of the past -short term- history of climate should have quickly made it clear that nothing out of the ordinary was happening that could be attributed to man.
However we have a curious gap in our understanding of our climate history, in as much we have many experts who believe they know what was happening tens of thousands, or indeed millions of years ago.
However, the number of experts conversant with ‘recent’ history during which man could conceivably have had an impact on climate-since human civilisation evolved some 8000 years ago- was very small in those crucial early days of the IPCC.
Hubert Lamb- ironically first director at CRU- and John Daly were the main ones, both of whom died at a crucial time in the evolution of the IPCC.
Curiously, to this day, the number of climate historians remains very small-there is myself and a few others- but none of us are in the same league as Lamb or Daly.
Nature abhors a vacum and non historians have filled it-most notably Michael Mann- whose Hockey Stick still resonates.
Whilst it may have been reasonable to set up the IPCC in the first place, its continued existence has, I believe, been due to empire building by those involved, and environmental activism. All this has been enhanced by politicians seeing an opportunty to use green taxes to fulfil their own aims. All in all a toxic mixture.
In truth the IPCC should have disbanded itself after AR2. It has served its purpose and failed to find the smoking gun. However there are now too many with a vested interest to let the corpse be buried-or even admit it is dead.
Tonyb
Potentilla, #9364:
Over the last few years, attitudes to AGW on the other side of the herring pond seem to have been consistently about 18 months behind the UK. Perhaps we are getting near to catchup time.
Good news though; expect to see David Holland on CNN soon.
potentilla (9364)
I cannot judge about the MSM in the USA. It appears that the general population is becoming more aware of the issues surrounding AGW. I do not believe that “cap ‘n tax” has much of a chance to pass in the US Senate in view of the current cooling plus recent revelations of IPCC data fudging, etc.
Recent polls seem to confirm that the US public does not support this bill or believe that global warming is a real threat.
The MSM has picked up the story in Switzerland, who have already enacted a modest and largely symbolic CO2 tax (without a public referendum). The fact that it is cooling has also not helped. There have been no recent Swiss polls on AGW, but I doubt if a majority now believe that it is a serious threat.
And, yes, more Swiss are interested in the latest developments between the USA, UBS, the bank employee that offered (in vain) to sell account data to the German tax authorities for millions and the Swiss supreme court ruling on bank secrecy.
Back to the USA. Fox, which is strongly critical of AGW, is a (rapidly growing) part of the MSM there. Other cable channels (such as CNN) have started raising questions about AGW (without taking an anti-AGW stand as yet).
The US administration has been very good at packaging the “cap ‘n trade” bill as a “clean energy” bill, which will create “millions of new jobs”, but the public does not appear to be falling for this, based on the poll data.
I predict that the more astute MSM outlets will gradually pick up on the current Climategate scandal as they see their ratings dropping even more to Fox.
But who knows what will really happen?
Max
Potentilla,
As an American, should I be insulted by your analysis?
I concede, you’re probably correct.
If I launch into a discussion at a dinner party about Urban Heat Island effect, the IPCC or albedo……… people’s eyes begin to glaze over with someone (usually an older gentleman) taking me aside afterward and asking me if I’m onto some new form of erectile dysfunction medication. (See: Libido)
I don’t know why, but this topic fascinates me……I realize that I’m abnormal and the “average Joe” really doesn’t give a damn.
I don’t think that people will begin to take interest until it begins to affect their pocket book or their lifestyle.
I don’t currently have a reference but the latest polls indicate that global warming………aka: “climate change” ranks dead last amongst the issue that concern most American voters.
In discussion with many “Warmists”, they contend that carbon monoxide is a dangerous poison causing global warming and will mean the end of civilization causing massive famines, catastrophic sea level rise, severe hurricanes, mass extinctions and genetic mutations (I made up the part about genetic mutations).
When I (politely) point out that the discussion surrounding global warming references carbon dioxide, they bristle with indignation and call me a right wing extremist, Nazi, puppy hating, male chauvinist, Gaia destroying, homophobe, capitalist pig and proclaim that I’ve been misinformed.
Max/Tonyb,
I don’t believe any discussion regarding the IPCC should discount the influence of Maurice Strong (speaking of massive corruption).
Hi everyone. Gosh hasn’t it been fun here whilst I have been trying to keep up with everything. Having to keep down a full job that’s getting busier every day and follow all the revelations is proving to be a difficult task.
But I have just finished reading every page of John P. Costella’s excellent CLIMATEGATE ANALYSIS. It has left me speechless. The spitefulness (I think this is the correct word) of Jones and Mann is difficult to equate with supposed intelligent professors. And the arrogance and bully boy tactics Jones used on the scientific publications was incredible.
But the most striking thing for me was that at the end just before Climategate broke they had no clue as to what was happening in the atmosphere. They finally last year start to think about the divergence between their models and the real world and are at loss. This is basically because they had preconceived ideas and had spent 20 years manipulating the data to fit this idea; I think the quote is “torture the data for long enough, and the data will confess” In the meantime thousands of people had been sucked into their fanatical belief, indeed some have staked all on AGW being true. Our good friend PeterM is one. None of this will make good reading for the likes of PeterM, as just about everything he has been bleating on to us about is contradicted or disqualified by the very scientists he has upheld as being the paragons of good climate science. It’s so bad in my opinion you couldn’t make it up.
I have wondered though over the last couple of months about the deafening silence from the Royal Society; or have I missed something? I was of the opinion in one of my first posts on Harmless sky that they bore a large proportion of the blame for science going off the rails, as they are the custodians of the scientific method. I was counselled at the time not to be so hard on them, by Robin of all people, something to do with a change of leadership at the RS. So where is the leadership?
Climategate cannot be anything but bad news for the RS, after all they have backed these scientists to the hilt. The bumbling of the IPCC will not worry them as it is a political organisation despite their portraying themselves as scientific. Am I still being too hard on them asking for a complete leadership cleanout or an immediate statement condemning the scientists at CRU, and more importantly indicating to our political masters that until a completely independent reanalysis of the temperature data has been completed no conclusions can be drawn about CO2 induced AGW.
Brute, potentilla
I’d go with TonyN’s prediction of an 18-month time lag until the US MSM catches up with the UK MSM on AGW, with Fox being the front-runner.
But then the US political leaders did not go quite as gaga as those in the UK with proclamations of “60 days to save the world” and “fairy tale TV ads”, so the pendulum never swung as far.
Max
Leaked climate change emails scientist ‘hid’ data flaws
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese
Scientist “under seige” seems to paint poor Mr. Jones as a victim here………..
Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud
Concerning Susan Solomon et al: Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming
I see that Gavin has initiated a quick lead on 29/Jan; at RC entitled The Wisdom of Solomon; ETRACT:
Of course Susan has magnificent credentials, having been the co-chair for WG1 in AR4, and is a senior scientist at NOAA/ERL Chemical Sciences Division; more at:
http://cires.colorado.edu/people/solomon/
I‘ve read her expert review comments during the drafting stage of AR4, and was surprised that she was rationally critical of some authors’ rather dodgy statements therein.
I guess Gavin and Tamino et al will not complain that Science/AAAS-on-line has a poor peer review process, what?
However, despite Susan et al’s conclusion that “… These findings show that stratospheric water vapor represents an important driver of decadal global surface climate change…” I guess the faithful at RC will be instructed that it is misunderstood in the media/blogosphere etc.
I’m not too confident about Susan’s conclusions some 30 (?) years ago on CFC’s and the Ozone hole depletion though!