Johann Hari on Journalismgate

Johann Hari has written an excellent article in The Nation on the scandalously poor reporting in the main stream media on climate science and scientists:

Yet when it comes to coverage of global warming, we are trapped in the logic of a guerrilla insurgency. The climate scientists have to be right 100 percent of the time, or their 0.01 percent error becomes Glaciergate, and they are frauds. By contrast, the deniers only have to be right 0.01 percent of the time for their narrative–See! The global warming story is falling apart!–to be reinforced by the media. It doesn’t matter that their alternative theories are based on demonstrably false claims, as they are with all the leading “thinkers” in this movement. Look at the Australian geologist Ian Plimer, whose denialism is built on the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans, even though the US Geological Survey has shown they produce 130 times less. Or Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker, who says the Arctic sea ice can’t be retreating because each year it comes back a little… in winter.


Many Americans assume that if a story has been in the news section of a reputable English newspaper, it has been fact-checked. One recent climate “scandal” that spread from Britain shows how these stories actually originate. In its most recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–the umbrella organization of the world’s climate scientists–explained that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest is at risk of dying if there is even a slight reduction in rainfall. This is true. It is the view of the most distinguished scientists in the field. The IPCC sourced this claim to a report by the World Wildlife Fund–when, in fact, it should have referred to a report by professor Dan Nepstad, whose work is mentioned only in passing by the WWF.

It was a minor footnoting error–but when a denialist blogger named Richard North noticed it, he announced he had found the IPCC making fake predictions. He tipped off the Sunday Times, owned by Fox king Rupert Murdoch. The newspaper’s journalists quoted Dr. Simon Lewis, a leading rainforest expert, who explained that it was a very minor mistake and that the core claim is accurate. The paper ignored the bulk of his comments and mangled his quotes to make it sound like he agreed that the IPCC had been talking rubbish–and ran the “story” under the headline “UN Climate Panel Shamed by Bogus Rainforest Claim.” It gave credit for “research by Richard North.” The story was then zapped all over the United States as Amazongate, and as a result millions of people are now under the impression that the Amazon is in no danger. The Sunday Times refuses to admit it made a whopping error–in a story that attacks the IPCC for supposedly making a whopping error.

Read the whole thing.

Also worth reading is Mark Hertsgaard in the same issue:

Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor who has been surveying Americans’ views on climate change since 1995, says that, in fact, Americans remain overwhelmingly convinced that man-made climate change is happening and must be confronted. “The media is sensationalizing these polls to make it sound like the public is backing off its belief in climate change, but it’s not so,” argues Krosnick, who delivered a paper on the subject at an American Meteorological Association briefing in Washington a day after the Gallup poll was released. Krosnick says that Americans’ views have remained quite stable over the past ten years and that in November 2009–the very time the media were full of stories about the stolen British e-mails–a whopping 75 percent of Americans said they believed that global temperatures are going up.

Krosnick, whose academic specialty is the wording of survey questions, suspects his colleagues at Gallup and elsewhere have gotten misleading results because of the way they worded their questions: their phrasing ended up testing whether Americans believed in the science of climate change rather than the phenomenon of climate change. “Most people’s opinions are based not on science but on what they experience in their daily lives,” Krosnick told me. “So our surveys ask people if they have heard about the idea that temperatures have been going up over the past 100 years and if they agree with this idea.” The 75 percent of Americans who answered yes to that question amounts to “a huge number,” says Krosnick–a far higher level of agreement than pertains on most political issues. Where climate change deniers have had an effect, he adds, is in reducing, to 31 percent, the number of Americans who think all scientists agree about climate change. “But most Americans have thought that [scientists don't all agree on climate change] for the entire fifteen years I’ve been polling on this issue,” adds Krosnick–further tribute, it seems, to the media’s longstanding habit of giving a handful of deniers prominence equal to the vast majority of scientists who affirm climate change.

Hat tip: Climate Shifts.

Comments

  1. #1 SamG
    April 22, 2010

    so why was it removed from the graph?

    From what I understand, some ground records are in question and satellite measurements began in ’78
    I don’t think skeptics claimed it was hidden but with the omitted data included, the temperature appear to decrease.

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    April 22, 2010

    …but with the omitted data included, the temperature appear to decrease.

    Seriously, you haven’t figured out yet that including it in a graph intended for non-scientists would be misleading, which is why it wasn’t included?

  3. #3 SamG
    April 22, 2010

    come again?

  4. #4 Robert Murphy
    April 22, 2010

    “From what I understand, some ground records are in question”

    Your understanding is wrong. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the instrumental record.

    “I don’t think skeptics claimed it was hidden”

    Sure they did; that’s why they insinuate the emails were part of a conspiracy to *hide the decline*. That was the whole *gotcha!* It’s nonsense. Everything that was done was out in the open.

    “but with the omitted data included, the temperature appear to decrease.”

    Which is obviously wrong, since by far the best temp record is from the last half century. That combined with other temp signals (sea level, glacial retreat) makes it incredibly unlikely it has been getting cooler the last 50 years.

  5. #5 SamG
    April 22, 2010

    I guess it depends on how one interprets the text?

    ‘A proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data [i.e. the Briffa reconstruction] somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly. [We want the truth. Mike thinks it lies nearer his result (which seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers
    and, less clearly, suspect about solar variations). The tree ring results may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance. This is probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present..’

    ‘Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
    first thing tomorrow.
    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
    to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
    1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
    land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
    N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
    for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
    data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
    Thanks for the comments, Ray.’

    Straight from the horses mouth

  6. #6 Neil
    April 22, 2010

    Oh, look, another asshat cut-and-pastes stolen material…

  7. #7 Robert Murphy
    April 22, 2010

    SamG,

    The first paragraph is not talking about 20th century temps. The discrepancy between Briffa’s reconstruction and Mann’s had to do with the 17th and especially 19th centuries, where Briffa’s results were warmer than Mann’s in parts.
    http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/

    The second paragraph is from a completely different letter (almost two months later) and different topic.

  8. #8 ChrisC
    April 22, 2010

    SamG @ 296 sez:

    Similarly, skeptics claim that late twentieth century tree ring data was removed from the 2001 IPCC temperature graph because it showed a decline. Is there any merit in this?

    … Sigh … Why do I bother?

    Several analyses of ringwidth and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades, although they do track the warming that occurred during the early part of the 20th century and they continue to maintain a good correlation with observed temperatures over the full instrumental period at theinterannual time scale (Briffa et al., 2004; D’Arrigo, 2006). This ‘divergence’ is apparently restricted to some northern, high-latitude regions, but it is certainly not ubiquitous even there. Briffa et al. (2001) specifi cally excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10)

    IPCC AR4, Chapter 6 “Paleoclimate” page 472-473. This took me, quite literally, 5 minutes to find. The denialists’ claim is meritless. The divergence problem is discussed in AR4.

  9. #9 Dave H
    April 22, 2010

    @SamG

    No amount of discussion will shake your deeply held religious fervour when you continue to ignore questions and corrections and throw up new timewasting garbage as a smokescreen.

    Gish did this. Plimer does this. You do this.

    Evasive.

  10. #10 SamG
    April 22, 2010

    Sorry Robert, first paragraph was referring to Lotharsson’s point:

    ‘Seriously, you haven’t figured out yet that including it in a graph intended for non-scientists would be misleading, which is why it wasn’t included?’

    But as I noticed in the comments, there is some discrepancy about your observation that it is not referring to late 20th C temps. The whole ‘cut and paste’ thing.

  11. #11 Robert Murphy
    April 22, 2010

    “Sorry Robert, first paragraph was referring to Lotharsson’s point…”

    No, it really wasn’t. Read the link I gave. The first paragraph you cut and pasted from is from an email from Sept 22nd 1999. The problem they were talking about had nothing to do with the divergence problem. The problem was Briffa’s 17th and more importantly 19th century reconstructions, which showed warmer, not lower, temps from the others. Again, read the link I provided, it explains it better than I can.
    http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/

    “But as I noticed in the comments, there is some discrepancy about your observation that it is not referring to late 20th C temps. The whole ‘cut and paste’ thing.”

    ?? The ‘cut and paste’ thing is about you selectively cutting and pasting two paragraphs from two unrelated emails separated by 2 months.

  12. #12 zoot
    April 22, 2010

    @308:

    … Sigh … Why do I bother?

    Beats me. I’ve had hemorrhoids with more intelligence than SamG.

  13. #13 TrueSceptic
    April 22, 2010

    Note how, once again, a denialist troll has derailed a thread. The thread is about the reporting of climate science in the MSM yet here we are arguing about the basics! These people just jump in, totally clueless about the concept of “on topic”, when they could’ve used an Open Thread to shout their ignorant lying mouths off.

  14. #14 Øystein
    April 22, 2010

    Well, SamG can only derail the thread if people let him.

    Personally, I find his.. thickheadedness amusing. Let him continue to demonstrate his utter lack of brains, I say! Funniest thing on the web these last few days

  15. #15 Eli Rabett
    April 22, 2010

    From Eli’s exalted POV, the whole point of Weaver’s suit is to show once more that Discovery is not just a TV channel.

  16. #16 Dave Andrews
    April 22, 2010

    MFS,

    So there is a southward migration of some species of fish in the S hemisphere and you have spent a considerable time studying it.

    Nothing wrong with that, except you have no idea, for example, if there were similar migrations in the past and what you are now observing is perhaps not unusual.

  17. #17 Jeremy C
    April 22, 2010

    Dave boy @ 316,

    Can you spell out for us the assumptions you have made in 316 and the presuppositions that interweave with them. For example have you assumed that MFS hasn’t already investigated any possibility and evidence for past migrations?

    Don’t forget Dave, science is not the same as sitting at one end of the bar at your local pub and grabbing everyone that passes by so that you can give ‘em your opinion.

    Or are you just being self aware and trying to wriggle out of answering the points and questions people have put to you on this thread?

    BTW Dave my boy, it looks like I won’t have to serve you with an FOI request, instead that will now go to Keenan seeing as he has got data my taxes have paid for. Of course my assumption there is that you will never have bovered to get climate data instead you just make a noise about it. Is my assumption right ot wrong Dave?

  18. #18 Vince Whirlwind
    April 22, 2010

    Dave Andrews, you seem to have missed the phrase you apparently don’t understand and which answers your question:

    “polewards range extension”.

    Ask a grown-up what it means.

    Why the compulsion to flaunt your ignorance?

  19. #19 Ian Forrester
    April 22, 2010

    VW asks of Dave (the Idiot) Andrews:

    Why the compulsion to flaunt your ignorance?

    The simple answer is that he is too stupid to even know that he is ignorant and intellectually bankrupt.

  20. #20 TrueSceptic
    April 22, 2010

    316 Dave Andrews,

    A Poe, surely. If only it were funny.

  21. #21 MFS
    April 22, 2010

    Dave @ 316: So you know nothing about the topic and yet choose to dismiss my post out of hand with a thoughtless remark: Polewards movements may have happened before. In and of itself the sort of remark that best shows your own incompetence (I just have to bring up Donning-Kruger once more), as nobody is disputing that the globe has been warmer in the past, at various times.

  22. #22 jemima
    April 22, 2010

    SamG #296 look for your word “incredulous” in a dictionary you poor sap.
    The word you wanted and failed to find is “incredible”. Also incredible is your form for vilifying people who correctly use other words you don’t understand, like “denialist”.

    [And on any day of the week, any post] …….
    Dave Andrews, meet Dunning and Kruger.
    Dunning-Kruger effect, meet delusional Dave.

    Better trolls please!
    These idiots have no manners and nothing better to do than attempt to derail Tim’s excellent blogging (where’s Ben, btw?)

    One solution for the mainstream meeja to its messing up over science these days can be found here at Deltoid where people have far funnier things to do than taking cranks, fools, poseurs seriously. Lighten up MSM!

  23. #23 Lotharsson
    April 22, 2010

    SamG has been given some broad hints and some corrective distinctions and even a useful link – which should be sufficient to allow him to seek out one of the many places on the Internet that provide explanations from the scientists of the meaning and import of “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline”.

    That would allow SamG, assuming he’s smart enough and has the desire to do so – neither of which are reliably in evidence at this point – to correct some of his misconceptions and attempt to assess whether the scientists’ explanations are defensible. Any bets on whether SamG will be willing and able to do this?

    I know which side my money’s on, but I do like positive surprises.

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    April 22, 2010

    [Dave Andrews](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.php#comment-2455185).

    Omigosh, I think you’ve discovered something that a professional scientist would never have thought about!!1!!11!!eleventyone!!*

    Except that such a possibility is exactly what a professional scientist would consider in any analysis…

    I might help your understanding if you bothered to check the primary literature first, and see how the evidence comes together and how the most parsimonious conclusions are drawn.

    How about you stop trying to tell us how to do our work, and we won’t tell you how to better your own efforts at being a primo numpty.

    I will offer one piece of advice though – be careful when sitting in the corner and playing with Ockham’s razor: you’re slicing yourself to shreds with it.

    (*eleventyone: snigger – I never tire of it!!elev…)

  25. #26 cohenite
    April 23, 2010

    I wondered where you’d been BJ; btw it was your mate dhogaza that started the penes business at 29.

    Special thanks to Jeff for admitting this:

    ” But do not humor me by claiming that the debate on climate change is about science”

    I’ve ignored the qualifier following; too much irony is not recommended.

    The one point of interest in 325 comments was the Amazon[gate] issue started at 73 and embellished at 84, 92, 109, 143. The 143 comment raises the concept of AGW enhanced El Ninos to explain the Amazon susceptibility to drought. The Marengo paper which is referred to at 143 strays from the issue of IPCC referencing and WWF involvement in that and whether there is a “follow the money” element to that:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/20/north-and-booker-on-amazongate-a-billion-dollar-cash-cow/#more-17540

    But that is by the by the by to a number of issues raised by the Marengo paper; firstly, they confirm the 1976 climate break consistent with the PDO phase shift; secondly, and most remarkably, they confirm McLean et al and the idea that natural factors are not stationary and contribute nothing to trend as the Mclean comment by Tamino asserted; from Marengo:

    ” because El Niño events have also became more frequent and intense in the 80s and 90s compared with the previous three decades”

    It is of course uncontroversial that El Nino should be more frequent in a +ve PDO but that they should be more intense tends to lend support that the +ve PDOs are becoming more warm than the -ve PDO’s are cool creating a trend from PDO asymmetry, something noted by Sun and Yu and Monahan and Dai. Of course Marengo claims that the more intense El Nino is due to AGW but in a completely circular fashion; that is El Nino is more intense therefore it can’t be natural because nature is balanced, symmetrical, stationary and non-trending. This is unsatisfactory.

    The concept of the changing El Nino has been treated in a number of papers dealing with the Modoki form but the Modoki occurance has not changed over the 20thC. One competing answer for the intensification of the El Nino is either an increase in solar activity or an increase in insolation due to variations in cloud cover:

    http://www.cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/meehl_solar_science_2009.pdf

    This of course confirms the Pinker et al conclusion.

  26. #27 jakerman
    April 23, 2010

    Cohnite writes:

    >*a +ve PDO but that they should be more intense tends to lend support that the +ve PDOs are becoming more warm than the -ve PDO’s are cool creating a trend from PDO asymmetry*

    The PDO is an index. That a +ve PDOs are becoming more warm than the -ve PDO’s are cool would occur if there was a warming trend of any cause (including the eGHG forcing we know is driving most the trend).

    Cohenite writes:

    >*The concept of the changing El Nino has been treated in a number of papers dealing with the Modoki form but the Modoki occurance has not changed over the 20thC.*

    Can you cite a credible source that contradicts that finding that there is no trend in SOI (El Nino)?

    Cohnite writes:

    >*The This of course confirms the Pinker et al conclusion*

    Please quote the conclusion of Pinker et al that you claim is confirmed by your uncited evidece for a change in SOI?

  27. #28 jakerman
    April 23, 2010

    A breif recap for cohenite on Pinker’s very useful findings.

    [Pinker found]( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5723/850) a downward trend is surface solar irradience from start point 1983 to 1990, then a stronger upward trend to 2001.
    >*We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase.*

    This break and switch in trend was very useful. What was the temperature [signal response](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2004/plot/gistemp/from:1983/to:1990/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1978/to:2006/mean:42/plot/gistemp/from:1990/to:2001/trend) to this so switch? [Not so much](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2004/plot/uah/from:1983/to:1990/trend/plot/uah/from:1978/to:2006/mean:42/plot/uah/from:1990/to:2001/trend), and that is despite a super El Nino in 1998 to push up the trend.

    Furthermore, solar driven forcing would produce more warming in days than nights, [that didn’t occur]( http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-2.html). And solar forcing would not produce stratospheric cooling, [which did occur]( http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm).

  28. #29 cohenite
    April 23, 2010

    “Can you cite a credible source that contradicts that finding that there is no trend in SOI (El Nino)?”

    There are 2 in my post.

  29. #30 jakerman
    April 23, 2010

    >*There are 2 in my post.*

    There are two quotes from Pinker et al’s conclusions in your post?

  30. #31 jakerman
    April 23, 2010

    Correction previous response was in error:

    >*There are 2 in my post.*

    Which?

  31. #32 cohenite
    April 23, 2010

    Actually there are 3 including Marengo although I don’t see that paper appreciated this point. The other 2 are:

    http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf

  32. #33 Paul UK
    April 23, 2010

    AGW Skeptic:”Where did Timothy Lambert get his PhD in climate science?”

    I suggest you ask the same of Monckton.
    Who seems to have far more time with his ‘arts’ degree convincing US senators etc. that global warming isn’t a problem.

  33. #35 Andrew A Bryant
    April 23, 2010

    Dear moderator

    I have learned very much from this site. Thank you for giving me some further graduate-level education. And that is an honest compliment.

    It however seems to me that we are rather losing the plot. Climategate? Whatevergate? FOIA requests? Legal issues by a scientist at U of Victoria? These are not your best venue.

    Data, my friend, just data. Moderate. Would you like a hand?

  34. #36 jakerman
    April 23, 2010

    Cohnite, The second paper: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf

    Discusses asymmetry (in SST effect) between El Nino and La Nina, but I could find nothing contradiction the finding that there has been no SOI trend in the 20th century.

  35. #37 cohenite
    April 23, 2010

    The Sun and Yu paper says this:

    “The El Nino–La Nina asymmetries provide a possible mechanism for ENSO to exert a nonzero
    residual effect that could lead to slow changes in the Pacific mean state.”

    The Monahan paper says this:

    “It is demonstrated that in historical SST and SAT
    reconstructions, the anomaly spatial pattern that changes sign between El Nino and La Nina events (the ‘‘linear’’
    signal) strongly resembles that of principal component analysis (PCA) mode 1, while that which does not change
    sign (the ‘‘nonlinear’’ signal) resembles the pattern of PCA mode 2.”

    This dovetails with the conclusions of the Parker Folland et al paper which also did a PCA analysis of the various trewnd and oscillating factors; that is, there were long stationary natural factors but short-term natural trend factors. The Parker paper is here:

    http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~bhatt/CJC/Parkeretal_2007.pdf

    The Parker paper is consistent with the Zhen-Shan paper:

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N3/C1.php

  36. #38 Jeremy C
    April 23, 2010

    Hey Cohenite,

    Wasn’t it sooo funny in the Monckton Lambert debate when Christopher went on and on and on to the audience about how Dr Pinker was a real satellite nerd and that Dr Pinker had no concern about GW etc as though he, Christopher, knew Dr Pinker intimately and was really familiar with his work.

    Then the voice came out of the darkness on the stage informing everyone including Christopher that Dr Pinker is a she not a he. It was a real Maxwell Smart moment.

    I can see you are still striving to be adequate by trying to copy Christopher’s pat sciency style. I guess you still think peer reviewed papers are just a collection of words that can have any meaning you like.

  37. #39 Michael
    April 23, 2010

    Oh lordy, cohers is back.

    Watch in fascination as he attempts to baffle with bullshit, only to be flummoxed by facts.

  38. #40 Michael
    April 23, 2010

    Jeremy, you hit the nail on the head.

    Cohers is a Monckton wannabe.

    He just comes here to trial his latest snake-oil pitch and brush-up on the scienciness.

  39. #41 MFS
    April 23, 2010

    Cohenite @ 326: I think you got your papers mixed up. Monahan and Dai (2004) discuss the fact that the two oppsite phases of the southern oscillation index (El Nino and La Nina) are asymmetrical, but assert that the physical mechanisms for this asymmetry are still unclear. It has nothing to say about trends. They indeed say that the linear signal resembles principal component mode 1, and the non-linear signal resembles principal component mode 2. If you can explain exactly in which way this shows ENSO to be responsible for a long term warming trend, please enlighten us all, as the authors suggest no such thing in the paper.

    Sun and Yu (2008) further expand on it by hypothesising it that the asymmetry of ENSO leaves it in a non-zero state after an El Nino or a La Nina event, and this accounts for the observed 10-15 year modulation in its intensity. It also has nothing to say about long term trends outside this 10-15 year modulation, and certainly does not attempt to explain the long-term warming trend. What it does not say is that any hypothesised mechanisms affect the Pacific mean state on any scale longer than this 10-15 year modulation.

    Finally your piece de resistance, Meehl et al. 2009, a Science paper no less, contemplates synergistic effects between two different mechanisms and the variations in the solar forcing, which by itself is too weak to account for all the effects observed. It concludes that these forcings are partly relevant in explaining decadal-timescale changes in the equatorial Pacific. It also explicitly states that this is all very well, but since the solar cycle has not shown a measurable trend in the last 30 years, it cannot account for recent global warming.

  40. #42 Michael
    April 23, 2010

    Thanks for checking cohers gibberish MFS, but there really is no need. Everything he writes is nonsense.

    There is a fine tradition in a wide variety of feilds of ideologically driven types putting togther weighty tomes replete with references and footnotes, but being pure garbage.

    You could give cohers any number of 10 randomly chosen climate papers and he’d produce pretty much the same AGW-denying screed in pretty much the same faux-sciency tone.

  41. #43 jakerman
    April 23, 2010

    I concur with MFS, once again you have pointed to nothing that contradictions the finding that there has been no SOI trend in the 20th century.

    And I’m still waiting for you to:

    >Please quote the conclusion of Pinker et al that you claim is confirmed by your uncited evidece for a change in SOI?

    Pinker’s conclusion should be something your can quote given your claim.

  42. #44 MFS
    April 23, 2010

    Michael @ 342: No worries. It’s sad but I was actually home alone, and I always enjoy reading the literature for something other than work!

  43. #45 cohenite
    April 23, 2010

    Thanks lads; I was at Joe Id’s watching the ‘debate’ between Fuller and Dr Lambert about civility and general tone at blogs; you’ve all been everything I could have asked for.

  44. #46 MFS
    April 23, 2010

    No worries, cohenite, one more for the road:

    You cite Marengo et al (which paper?) as saying that the El Nino phase of ENSO has become more frequent and intense during the 1980s and 90s than the three previous papers. You state that this confirms Pinker et al’s conclusion. I assume you refer to Pinker, Zhang and Dutton (2005), in the journal Science. This is interesting since research articles in Science have no conclusion, and Pinker et al is consistent with this, they have no clearly identifiable conclusion. However they do find that the satellite record suggests dimming of the globe during the 1980s until 1992, then a brightening since then. Why have I highlited the word dimming? Well, because this finding is clearly totally incompatible with your citation of Marengo suggesting that solar radiation accounts for the increased frequency and intensity of the El Nino phase of ENSO during that same time.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    Now if you could also tell me what this has to do with the (apparently) deliberate misrepresentation of science by journalists, so we can get back on topic…

  45. #47 SamG
    April 23, 2010

    Robert Murphy, that is a matter of interpretation from the source you referenced. You may or may not be correct but you can’t present a discussion as fact. McIntyre has responded to that claim but do you want to play tit for tat?

    Is it too early for your opinion on Baillie’s oaks and do you agree with Lotharsson that it would be ‘misleading’ to present post 60′s tree ring values to the public?
    Seems strange that they were used at all.

  46. #48 Lotharsson
    April 23, 2010

    …do you agree with Lotharsson that it would be ‘misleading’ to present post 60′s tree ring values to the public?

    So, SamG’s still asking others to do his homework. Does rather remind one of Brent, doesn’t it?

  47. #49 SamG
    April 23, 2010

    ChrisC

    ‘The above paragraph exists only because of my Review Comments on the Second Draft. Briffa continued the TAR non-disclosure in the AR4 First Draft and AR4 Second Drafts – climate scientists in the field didn’t object, but I did. I asked Briffa to show the inconvenient data and explain it as best that he could. He continued to refuse to show the adverse data, but grudgingly inserted the above paragraph in the AR4 Report itself. This paragraph was never presented to the IPCC peer review process. Otherwise, I, for one, would have strongly objected to some of these assertions, which I believe to be invalid. As to Briffa’s decision not to show the inconvenient data in the graphic (while burying a disclaimer in the text – something not done in TAR), the Climategate emails show a keen sense on the part of Overpeck and IPCC authors of this stratagem – see the handling of the Law Dome series, which has a high MWP. I asked that this be shown in the graphic. Once again, they refused. The Climategate letters show that the IPCC authors intentionally used text as an alternative to graphics to minimize disclosure.’ Steve McIntyre

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/14/oxburghs-trick-to-hide-the-trick/

  48. #50 Michael
    April 23, 2010

    Today’s lesson from cohers- it’s not the facts that matter, it’s the ‘tone’.

    Ah, ‘sweet little lies’.

  49. #51 Bernard J.
    April 23, 2010

    Actually, [Michael](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.php#comment-2456687), I enjoy reading pieces such as [MFS's](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.php#comment-2456678), because they explicitly demonstrate how cohenite, when confronted with the real science of the work that he so consistently misrepresents, simply ignores his takings-down and carries on spreading his pseudoscientific memes with gay abandon*.

    It’s typical of cohenite’s modus operandi – he make a pseudoscientific claim, using jargon and references to apparently consensus-repudiating material, and when his nonsense and misinterpretations of papers are exposed, he simply shuffles the cups and hopes that the punters haven’t noticed that he’s move the pea from where it was originally.

    All in the fine tradition of Tim Curtin, Girma Orssengo, the muddle-headed Spangled Drongo, and a cast of others on Deltoid and elsewhere who believe that Dunning-Kruger applies to the professionals in a field, and not to their own evident powers of genius.

    What a shame that it ain’t actually so.

    (*I can just see the collaboration now: Cox A and Abandon G. An alternative theory of everything, based on a me-too analysis of a random sampling of a constrained window of the laws of physics.

  50. #52 Jeff Harvey
    April 23, 2010

    Cohenite,

    Re: your post @326. One side in the climate change debate is actually doggedly involved in scientific endeavor: the majority of climate scientists who are in agreement that humans are the primary agent in forcing climate. You know – the one’s actually doing the primary research, publishing their data in peer-reviewed journals, and attending workshops and conferences where this issue is discussed and debated.

    Then you have the other side, largely populated by think tanks, right wing groups and the m-s-media, and a few scientists, primarily on the academic fringe, who are doing little if any primary research on their own but whose job (apparently) is to hound scientists on the other side for their data sets so that they can go over them with a fine toothed comb in a desperate attempt to find any flaws they can, and then to amplify any of these mistakes, no matter how miniscule they are, in an attempt to downplay the significance of AGW. By downplaying AGW, nothing will be done to deal with it. And that is the point: the rank-and-file of those in denial have little in the way of scientific expertise and many have taken little interest in any areas of environmental science until certain fields began to infringe on the market economy, thereby threatening the status quo. Suddenly the political right mobilized itself to combat the threat through various means: funding think tansk to disseminate misinformation to the public; funding or supporting astroturf lobbying groups and PR firms (and by enlisting a few scientists to their cause) to also challenmge the scientific basis of climate change and other nefarious measures. As I said, the debate was never about science and there is no irony intended; the so-called sceptics aim to generate directed conclusions on the topic of climate change in order to ensure that nothing is done about it.

    Given that you have apparently no scientific qualifications in climate science or any other field of Earth science, it is clear that your support for the denialati is one that is based on political and economic, rather than scientific, expediency. But you are not unique: IMHO the vast majority of the denialists fall into this category. They do not give a rat’s ass for the scientific truth, but have to package their denial as such; hence mendacious propaganda is necessary to cloak their lies as honest scientific enquiry.

    Glad to see that others here have debunked all of your simple gibberish.

  51. #53 cohenite
    April 23, 2010

    And a goodnight to you too MFS; Pinker puts forward the usual suspects for your dimming including “instrument defiiencies” but the guts of what she says, despite jakerman’s pat objections, all of which I have dealt with before, is this:

    “It was found at the surface, there is a positive linear increase of about 0.18 W m-2 year-1, which indicates an increase in surface radiation. At the ToA, the situation is reversed and the decrease is about -017 W m-2 year-1.”

    Notwithstanding a static sun Pinker observes “clouds are the major modulators of the solar radiation that reaches the surface.”

    Jakerman has stated that the decrease in S reaching the surface from 1983 to 1992 [the dimming] and an increase thereafter has had no measureable effect on temp; that temps were going up about the same rate during both periods; so, there’s the puzzle; with apparent cloud variation causing the fluctuation in S, how is it that when S is declining temp is going up at the same rate as when S is increasing; if AGW is causing the increase during the S downturn how can AGW have the same effect when S is increased? The sun has no or negligible effect at measureable levels of increase or decrease? Is that what you’re saying?

  52. #54 jakerman
    April 23, 2010

    cohnite writes:

    >*despite jakerman’s pat objections, all of which I have dealt with before*

    Happy to stand corrected cohnite, show us how you deal with my points that I again [raised here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.php#comment-2456373). Including the lack of temperature response, the lack of diurnal temperature growth, the stratopheric cooling, and you can add the fastest rate of warming at higher latitudes, particularly the Arctic. All of which are consistent with GHG forcing and none consistent with and increase in solar isolation.

    I believe you had a totally inadequate response to each of these points.

    And for the third time, I’m still waiting for you to:

    >Please quote the conclusion of Pinker et al that you claim is confirmed by your uncited evidece for a change in SOI?

    Pinker’s conclusion should be something your can quote given your claim.

  53. #55 jakerman
    April 23, 2010

    Cohnite asks:

    >*how is it that when S is declining temp is going up at the same rate as when S is increasing*

    A simple explanation is that change in S is small compared to other forcing factors. Remember Wild [(cited by Lambert)]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_takes_back_nice_wo.php) explains:

    >*The decadal changes in SSR found in the dimming/brightening literature are at first sight often unrealistically large from a radiative forcing viewpoint, as, e.g., presented by IPCC [2007]. Therein, radiative forcings altering solar radiation between preindustrial (year 1750) and present day are on the order of **minus 1-2 W m−2 on a global average**, while **some of the surface-based estimates show similar or larger changes already within a decade** [...]
    Indeed, under the assumption of a climate sensitivity of 0.5-1°C per W m−2 radiative forcing as suggested by current climate models, a change of several W m−2 decade−1 as inferred from surface observations would imply enormous decadal variations in surface temperature which are not observed. However, one should be aware that the radiative forcing concept as used in the IPCC reports applies to **changes at the tropopause, which cannot be directly compared to changes at the surface**.*

  54. #56 Robert Murphy
    April 23, 2010

    SamG said:

    “Robert Murphy, that is a matter of interpretation from the source you referenced.”

    No, it’s a matter of fact. The paragraph from the email was clearly not talking about a problem with 20th century temps or about the divergence problem. It was talking about how Briffa’s reconstruction from the 19th century (and somewhat for the 17th too) showed temps WARMER than the other series. The issue was resolved, too.
    The first paragraph you copied and pasted was from an email from late Sept. 1999, the second paragraph was from an email from about two months later and had absolutely nothing to do with the first.

    “Is it too early for your opinion on Baillie’s oaks … blah blah blah…?”

    Is it too early for you to stick to one point and answer it with a little intellectual honesty? Or are you still going pretend against all evidence that the “hide the decline” had something to do with an alleged decline in temps over the last few decades? What’s it going to be? Your answer will determine whether I respond again.

  55. #57 SamG
    April 23, 2010

    Errrrr, Robert, my last post was held back so assuming nothing’s changed, you probably won’t read anything else from me. I’ll see what happens this time.

  56. #58 SamG
    April 23, 2010

    /\ Oh good

    Steve has responded to this

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

  57. #59 SamG
    April 23, 2010

    It appears that when I post links, my posts await moderation.
    I’m not making this up.

  58. #60 SamG
    April 23, 2010

    htt p: //climatea udit.org/2009/12/10/ ipcc-and-the-trick/

  59. #61 Robert Murphy
    April 23, 2010

    SamG,
    You didn’t address my points, you’re just flailing now. I already posted a link showing that Mcintyre deliberately and selectively edited the emails to make it appear the discussion was late 20th century temps when in fact it was clearly 19th century (and to a lesser degree 17th century) temps that were at issue. You have completely ignored my post, and have instead resorted to reposting Mcintyre’s original dishonest piece. You are hopeless; have a good life. I’m done with you.

  60. #62 SamG
    April 23, 2010

    Did you read it?

    Obviously not.

    It isn’t McIntyre’s original piece, it’s his retort.

  61. #63 Robert Murphy
    April 23, 2010

    “It isn’t McIntyre’s original piece, it’s his retort”
    From his time machine?

    *IPCC and the “Trick”*
    Posted by Steve McIntyre on Dec. 10th at 6:50 PM

    *McIntyre provides fodder for skeptics*
    posted at Deep Climate on Dec. 11th

    You’re batting .000 Sam. Give it up. Again, have a nice life.

  62. #64 Dave Andrews
    April 23, 2010

    MFS,

    So you agree that polewards movements have happened before. And your science is recording another episode of such movement.

    But how significant is it? You weren’t around to measure the previous episodes, but obviously life in the sea continued so that you can measure it now. So again how significant is it? Nature constantly changes, why do you seem to think there is something wrong with this?

  63. #65 Dave Andrews
    April 23, 2010

    Ian Forrester,

    Your name calling is really rather boring.

  64. #66 Greg H
    April 23, 2010

    I’m new to this particular blog; so far there have been some very helpful points made. So far, Steve Reuland’s comment in the thread about Andrew Weaver & the NP sums up much of the issue around what’s happening to the public’s view of Science.

    I understand that you folks value well-reasoned debate, and a spirited discussion, both inside and outside of formal scientific subject areas. However, I’m amazed that as a group you’re so willing to feed the trolls, a couple of whom are getting exactly what crave by participating in this thread: Attention.

    “Don’t feed the trolls” was a truism on many groups ten years ago, and it’s still the best means of dealing with people whose ONLY purpose here is to get attention. They’re not here for discussion, or to change your mind about climate change, grammar, politics or anything else. They can’t be educated to change their thinking on any of their chosen subjects. They are incorrigible.

    “Don’t feed the trolls” means do not respond to them in *any* way. When they don’t get what they’re after, they will disappear back into the woodwork (rather like bedbugs) and look for greener pastures. If we apply this principle broadlt to fora where we expect reasoned discussion, they will eventually find themselves relegated to the fringes of the internet, where they can cavort with their peers to their heart’s content. If you stop by for a look, make sure to bring your wellies!

    Thanks for listening. ;-)

  65. #67 Ian Forrester
    April 23, 2010

    Dave (the Idiot) Andrews said:

    Your name calling is really rather boring

    Not at all. I think of it as doing a service in case any new visitor to this blog is about to make life changing decisions based on the rubbish and lies you post on this site and around the internet. They have the right to know that you are intellectually and morally bankrupt.

    Quite a pathetic case in fact. People like you will, no doubt, provide years and years of case studies to those psychologists and sociologists who study the mindlessness of AGW deniers.

    Do you ever think (sorry stupid question) that maybe your neighbours or work mates may actually read the blogs and have a good laugh at your nonsense?

  66. #68 cohenite
    April 23, 2010

    jakerman; this conversation about Pinker and Wild and the points you raise was done before here from 122;

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comments

    I did not raise Pinker in the context of SOI but in the context of a possible mechanism to explain SOI variation, clouds; ie at comment 326:

    ” One competing answer for the intensification of the El Nino is either an increase in solar activity or an increase in insolation due to variations in cloud cover:”

  67. #69 AmandaS
    April 23, 2010

    And to get back to JournalismGate: The Australian has done it again. There’s been no stories at all on the enquiries into the CRU e-mails until now. And guess who it’s written by: Richard Lindzen.

    Surprisingly for The Australian and climate change opinion pieces, it is open for comments, so if anyone wants to mock the article (and really, honestly, mockery is all it deserves – I read it and got out of it (a) “it’s all a conspiracy” and (b) Bingo! on my denialati bingo card) it can be found [here](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/alarmists-keep-ringing-the-bell/story-e6frg6zo-1225857624661). Of course, knowing The Australian, all comments will be moderated and most won’t turn up (they seem to get very lax on the weekends and News Limited do have a real crisis ie MelbourneStormGate to deal with right now – oh noes, somebody overpaid a footballer!).

    A

  68. #70 SamG
    April 23, 2010

    Again Robert Murphy, you haven’t read the article. Criticism of McIntyre’s ‘out of context’ referencing existed before the publication of the Deep Climate article.
    The Climate Audit article also includes the quotation in question, in its full unedited form.
    Wishful thinking on your behalf.

  69. #71 SamG
    April 23, 2010

    Chris C#308

    McIntyre also commented on this

    ‘The above paragraph exists only because of my Review Comments on the Second Draft. Briffa continued the TAR non-disclosure in the AR4 First Draft and AR4 Second Drafts – climate scientists in the field didn’t object, but I did. I asked Briffa to show the inconvenient data and explain it as best that he could. He continued to refuse to show the adverse data, but grudgingly inserted the above paragraph in the AR4 Report itself. This paragraph was never presented to the IPCC peer review process. Otherwise, I, for one, would have strongly objected to some of these assertions, which I believe to be invalid. As to Briffa’s decision not to show the inconvenient data in the graphic (while burying a disclaimer in the text – something not done in TAR), the Climategate emails show a keen sense on the part of Overpeck and IPCC authors of this stratagem – see the handling of the Law Dome series, which has a high MWP. I asked that this be shown in the graphic. Once again, they refused. The Climategate letters show that the IPCC authors intentionally used text as an alternative to graphics to minimize disclosure.’

    ht
    tp://climate
    audit.org/2010/04/14/oxburghs-trick-to-hide-the-trick/

  70. #72 SamG
    April 23, 2010

    R.E. # 369

    The order of the two articles would also suggest that McIntyre was aware of these problems and wasn’t covering his ass in lieu of a previously dated post.

  71. #73 jakerman
    April 23, 2010

    Thanks for the link cohnite, now can you point to the where in the thread that you appropriately “dealt with” my points, as in:

    >Happy to stand corrected cohnite, show us how you deal with my points that I again raised here. Including the lack of temperature response, the lack of diurnal temperature growth, the stratopheric cooling, and you can add the fastest rate of warming at higher latitudes, particularly the Arctic. All of which are consistent with GHG forcing and none consistent with and increase in solar isolation.

    >I believe you had a totally inadequate response to each of these points.

  72. #74 Fran Barlow
    April 23, 2010

    Amanda S@368 said:

    Of course, knowing The Australian, all comments will be moderated and most won’t turn up (they seem to get very lax on the weekends and News Limited do have a real crisis ie MelbourneStormGate to deal with right now – oh noes, somebody overpaid a footballer!).

    There’s a distinct possibility that News Ltd will be implicated in taxation fraud, since if the players din’t know the real value of their salary packages they probably didn’t declare them fully.

    Would it not be sad if the biggest backer of of the war on science in Australia and a major slanderer of climate scientists turned out to be also involved in taxation fraud?

  73. #75 Connor
    April 23, 2010

    AmandaS – I posted a comment, I’ll await to see whether they have the balls to publish it or not.

  74. #76 cohenite
    April 23, 2010

    jakerman; Your Wild assertions have been answered at the link. Your point about there being no temperature reflection of the Pinker SW breakup between 1983-1992 [SW at BOA decreasing] and 1992-2001 [SW at BOA increasing] is here;

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1983/to:1992/trend/plot/uah/from:1983/to:2001/plot/uah/from:1992/to:2001/trend

    I found your graph confusing because it didn’t correlate with the Pinker times.

    Your point about the Arctic warming quicker than elsewhere is here;

    http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

    Your point about DTR is here:

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/easterling.htm

    Stratosphere cooling; well, MSU finds some cooling in the lower stratosphere;

    http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

    But in 2008 it was 0.334K PD and I still like this graph;

    http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Stratosphere1278-1204.gif

  75. #77 jakerman
    April 24, 2010

    cohnite:

    1) [Your chart](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1983/to:1992/trend/plot/uah/from:1983/to:2001/plot/uah/from:1992/to:2001/trend) (like mine) shows no significant temperature response. (As previously discussed, same rate of warming pre and post S trend switch. (I.e. consistent with anther forcing is having greater influence)

    (My chart corresponded with the year 1990 given in Pinker’s abstract.)- Similar result.

    Caution must also be used when comparing short-term trends or forincing can greatly influence short term trends, and create spurious results. (i.e. Pinitubo or SOI).

    2) The AOI seem to have regional impact, however it appears insufficient to expalin the amplification in [inland continental warming](http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/10year.gif) in higher latitudes. Nor the fact that warming is [greatest in winter]( http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php) compared to summer.

    There is also [evidence that](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7174/full/nature06502.html):

    >*A significant proportion of the observed temperature amplification must therefore be explained by mechanisms that induce warming above the lowermost part of the atmosphere.*

    3) Re failure for DTR to increase in response to a slight change is solar insolation: Hughes’ un peer reviewed comments on Easterling 1997 provide zero evidence to contradict findings presented of [Vose et al 2005](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-2.html).

    4) Re stratospheric cooling, I’m not surprised you like a chart with cherry picked ashort term trend. However the decadal trend is a cooling of the lower stratosphere of [0.3K/decade]( http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html). Nearly twice as fast as the warming at the lower troposphere.

  76. #78 Bernard J.
    April 24, 2010

    Anthony Cox opening for the defense in court…

    “Your Honour, the Prosecution’s wild assertions have been answered in this diary. My Learned Colleague’s point about my client having punched his estranged wife in the face is addressed in this this link to my client’s facebook page. As to my client’s whereabouts at the time of the alleged incident, I still like this ‘phonebook.

    I rest my case”.

  77. #79 Bernard J.
    April 24, 2010

    On the matter of the Australian’s publication of Lindzen’s piece, mentioned by [AmandaS](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.php#comment-2458529), I submitted this comment:

    Richard Lindzen makes claims such as “Penn State University’s Michael Mann … manipulated data to create the famous ‘hockey stick’ climate graph”, but he stops short of saying whether the manipulations were valid scientific procedures or if they were fraud. The rest of this piece is similarly structured.

    It seems that Lindzen is pursuing dog-whistle propaganda in his writing. It is cerainly not objective, nor is it factually accurate.

    Perhaps he is cognisant of Andrew Weaver’s suit* against the National Post for publishing fraudulent statements about Weaver: Lindzen certainly presents the impression of having said something, and his readers are certainly left with a particular impression, but he allows himself room for much dissembling should he himself be accused of claiming fraud and/or incompetence on the part of others.

    This is despicable op-editing. And the Australian wonders why its reader base is disappearing: a clue – intelligent folk know garbage when they see it…

    *http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/scientist_fights_back_against.php

    Just as [Connor does](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.php#comment-2458839), I wonder if they’ll have the courage to publish it.

  78. #80 t_p_hamilton
    April 24, 2010

    Anthony Cox closing argument…
    “…ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!”

  79. #81 Bernard J.
    April 24, 2010

    T P Hamilton.

    You pre-empted me, but in a good way. Consider this:

    And in closing I ask you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, to find that my client’s estranged wife assaulted his fist with her face – and I have one final thing I want you to consider.

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!”

    There, that sounds like a cohenite argument!

  80. #82 SamG
    April 24, 2010

    Hello Robert?

  81. #83 Dave H
    April 24, 2010

    Hello SamG?

    Which part of AGW is true?

    Evasive.

  82. #84 Dave H
    April 24, 2010

    @SamG

    > The Climate Audit article also includes the quotation in question, in its full unedited form.

    That was retroactively added to the post, without indication that this has happened. Watts pulls the same thing whenever he can’t hide from criticism.

    What, you didn’t know that kind of thing went on at Climateaudit? You must not have been paying attention at the time…

  83. #85 SamG
    April 24, 2010

    …that co2 is a greenhouse gas; I’ll give you that Dave H. But then there are a myriad of factors to consider such as forcings, feedback mechanisms, past climate etc etc… nobody can claim a monopoly on the truth(yet).

  84. #86 Lotharsson
    April 24, 2010

    But then there are a myriad of factors to consider such as forcings, feedback mechanisms, past climate…

    …which strangely enough has occurred to climate scientists already. And they’ve spent some time looking at those things. What do you think they’ve discovered, with what level of uncertainty, and which parts do you disagree with and why?

  85. #87 Bernard J.
    April 24, 2010

    [Lotharsson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.php#comment-2459467).

    Don’t be unfair. You are asking SamG to do science.

    That will break the poor boy.

    [Sob...]

  86. #88 Lotharsson
    April 24, 2010

    Don’t be unfair. You are asking SamG to do science.

    Nah, Bernard – it’s entirely fair, since he made a claim about the veracity of the science.

    And yes, it might indeed break him to substantiate his claim on scientific grounds. Which, if it eventuates, would be indicative of the value of his claims…

  87. #89 Connor
    April 24, 2010

    still no comments published on The Australian op-ed peice. Cowards.

  88. #90 Chris O'Neill
    April 24, 2010

    Fran Barlow:

    There’s a distinct possibility that News Ltd will be implicated in taxation fraud, since if the players din’t know the real value of their salary packages they probably didn’t declare them fully.

    Sorry for the O/T tangent but would there be any point in paying a player more than they’re allowed if they didn’t know about it? The whole point of paying them more is to motivate them to play for the club paying more, surely. No knowledge: no motivation. Thus I’d be very surprised if the players didn’t know they were being paid more.

  89. #91 SamG
    April 24, 2010

    Lotharsson, let’s continue at Robert Murphy’s departure.
    He thinks that a deep climate post somehow proves that McIntyre’s climategate anecdote is erroneous to the late 20th C. (see above)
    McIntyre posted an evaluation of these criticisms a day before deep climate presented their post. McIntyre also posted the ‘offensive’ climategate quotation in its entirety, with detailed explanations.
    Of course, Robert is being pedantic by claiming that the climateaudit post is not responsive to the specific deep climate article; being a day older. It is in fact a response to the same topic discussed at real climate.

    It’s instances like this, where the advocacy claim a win because of small minutiae and misinformation, that really convulote the argument. There are many examples of this.

    Now I don’t expect you to agree with me but it would be completely fanciful for you to believe that the climategate letters are innocuous and that skeptics don’t have a case.
    This is the same nonsense that would suggests that FOI request refusals are admissible and that the politically left aren’t funded as extensively as you lot claim the right are

    There’s B.S. in both camps. Instead of trying to create diversions by focusing on my scientific ‘rigor’, it would be far more honest for you to admit there is some ambiguity in the science, that asserting a radical viewpoint is a flawed approach and personal attacks are a characteristic of political dogmatism, not science.

  90. #92 Ian Forrester
    April 24, 2010

    SamG said:

    nobody can claim a monopoly on the truth(yet).

    Quite right, however the converse of this is that there are a number of people and sites which have a monopoly on lies and dishonesty.

    In case you have trouble discerning which is which may I refer you to climatefraudit, wattsuphisbutt, co2sceince, icecap, and a host of others which are discussed regularly on this site which seem to be a haven for lies, distortion, obfuscation and personal smears.

  91. #93 Connor
    April 24, 2010

    Ian Forrester – Funny isn’t it? Of course noBODY has a monopoly on the truth, but a veritable fucktonne of people have a consnesus on truth, while a bunch of nobodies try to deny the truth through misrepresentation, mischaracterisation and obfuscation. Ironic, ain’t it?

  92. #94 SamG
    April 24, 2010

    Based on your agreement on monopoly, there is no basis for using ugly terminology such as denier. Correct?
    I think the infallible view of the advocacy vs. evil skepticism, allows people to continually justify using this term. But it’s total crap.
    Whether you drop the D word, I don’t know?

    My previous post discussed this but I am now moderated. Maybe it will appear tomorrow? Who knows.

  93. #95 SamG
    April 24, 2010

    Connor, your argument is a logical fallacy. If there’s no monopoly on the truth, consensus is irrelevant. Your post displays emotion over logic. (agenda)

  94. #96 Ian Forrester
    April 24, 2010

    It is obvious that SamG is scared of the truth. That is why he wants the word “DENIER” stricken from the English language.

    You are a hoot but but what you post is no longer laughable. You are pathetic.

    Well everyone is getting exposed to the truth about you. You have a monopoly on stupid, anti-intellectual, ignorant and arrogant.

  95. #97 John
    April 24, 2010

    Us: Science please.

    SamG: HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A DENIER I DEMAND YOU STOP USING THAT TERM IMMEADIATELY.

    Us: Science please.

    SamG: I AM RIGHT WATTS CLIMATE AUDIT NOVA EMAILS CLIMATEGATE DON’T CALL ME A DENIER.

  96. #98 Dave Andrews
    April 24, 2010

    Ian Forrester,

    Slur away as much as you like. In retrospect you will prove to be the idiot.

  97. #99 Ian Forrester
    April 24, 2010

    Dave (the Idiot) Andrews said:

    In retrospect you will prove to be the idiot.

    In your dreams idiot. Have you never heard that truth will out? The truth is found in the scientific literature, not in the postings of idiots like you. Why do you keep showing how much of an idiot you are? Do you not have enough sense to try and be honest so that people like me will not be able to pour scorn on you?

    You are pathetic, do your neighbors and friends ever check out what you post? They must think that you are the biggest fool on the block (unless you live in a nut house).

  98. #100 Lotharsson
    April 24, 2010

    Based on your agreement on monopoly, there is no basis for using ugly terminology such as denier. Correct?

    No, this is fallacious black & white thinking. It assumes you can only exhibit denial when the complete set of truth is fully known with no uncertainty and no prospect of further changes or improvements and pretty much everyone agrees.

    Denial can apply to scientific truths in fields where more related truths remain to be solidified and it can apply to the level of (un-)certainty currently attached to a scientific case.

    Basically, if you’re “skeptical” about some (aspect of a) scientific case but you can’t fairly represent that case and show reasonable cause for your “skepticism”, you’re “denying” that case. Reasonable cause does not include “some out of context e-mails made me suspicious of some people and/or their methods”.

    Now I don’t expect you to agree with me but it would be completely fanciful for you to believe…

    Argument by assertion of desired result coupled with belittlement of any alternative. Not very convincing.

    …that the climategate letters are innocuous and that skeptics don’t have a case.

    The “concerns” about the letters have been explained by the authors. To my knowledge none of the “skeptics” have been able to show a single paper that would be withdrawn or even significantly modified as a result of any “new information” revealed in the letters. Feel free to attempt to be the first.

    Furthermore the letters are most commonly used to cast doubt on the CRU temperature record and imply that the scientists involved are out and out frauds – but it appears that Steve Mosher who authored the first book on the letters said that no-one “having any credibility” – by which he means “credible” “skeptics” such as McIntyre, Watts – and Mosher – “…expects to find some huge smoking gun in the [CRU] code. No error that accounts for the warming.”

    It seems that Mosher himself isn’t entirely straightforward with the truth – his book is marketed as showing people that the e-mails are commonly interpreted out-of-context, but in context they are much worse. And yet he basically says that no, really, the CRU temperature record is largely correct and hence not fraudulent. And dobs in Watts and McIntyre as believing the same, despite their frequent appearance in PR campaigns that imply the opposite. Doesn’t that make the three of them frauds?

    And wow – those letters are proving a huge distraction for you preventing you from showing the scientific case for your “skepticism”. Are you unable to provide one, or merely unwilling?

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.