There have been new developments in the Rosegate, the scandal about the way David Rose sexed up his story about the IPCC and the Himalayan glaciers. Andrew Revkin has posted an email from Murari Lal, the scientist that Rose verballed:
I am not a Glaciologist but a Climatologist and the statement attributed to me in "Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified" By David Rose in UK Daily Mail on 24th January 2010 has been wrongly placed. I never said this story at any time and strongly condemn the writer for attributing this to me.
More specifically, I never said during my conversation with Rose the following statements being attributed to me:
(a) 'it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.'
(b) '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.'
(c) 'It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.', and
(d) 'We as authors followed them to the letter,' he said. 'Had we received information that undermined the claim, we would have included it.'.
Contrary to the claim by Rose that "Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly," the Asia Chapter does include this finding under section 10.2.4.2 on page 477.
What I said was "As authors, we had to report only the best available science (inclusive of a select few grey literatures as per the rules of procedure) which is "policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral" and that's what we collectively did while writing the Asia Chapter. None of the authors in Asia Chapter were Glaciologist and we entirely trusted the findings reported in the WWF 2005 Report and the underlying references as scientifically sound and relevant in the context of climate change impacts in the region.
Checking chapter 10 of AR4 WG2 I find that Lal is correct. They state:
A recent study in northern Pakistan, however, suggests that glaciers in the Indus Valley region may be expanding, due to increases in winter precipitation over western Himalayas during the past 40 years (Archer and Fowler, 2004).
Compare with Fowler's comment on the draft report:
I am not sure that this is true for the very large Karakoram glaciers in the western Himalaya. Hewitt (2005) suggests from measurements that these are expanding - and this would certainly be explained by climatic change in precipitation and temperature trends seen in the Karakoram region (Fowler and Archer, J Climate in press; Archer and Fowler, 2004)
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Rose is going to correct his story. He emailed Revkin:
I've only just become aware that you have stated in your blog that I misquoted Dr Lal in my recent Mail on Sunday article. This claim is utterly false. I reported Dr Lal's remarks to me exactly as he made them, and as I recorded in verbatim notes at the time. Would you please amend your blog at once to take account of this. I don't have to tell you that this is a very serious allegation to make about a fellow reporter. I am, I must say, surprised that you made no attempt to put it to me before publishing it. Dr Lal may regret what he said, but say these things he did. I would appreciate a speedy response.
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
I think the Daily Mail should conduct an investigation into Rosegate and Rose should stand down from reporting on climate change until it is completed.
See also: James Hrynyshyn on Rosegate.
- Log in to post comments
Just getting a statement from Murari Lal is insufficient.
It doesn't count until you hack his email archive and come back with his birth certificate (long form)!
It has been [reported](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_…) that the IPCC used another WWF report as a reference on regional change in the amazon (apologies for the clueless denialist context). Anyone got a source for this?
While screwups in referencing at a regional level don't change my confidence in the Vol 1 conclusions one jot, I think Pachauri has to go as a result of all this. As well as the "voodoo science" comment, he had a conflict of interest on the glacier research.
Reminders:
-- no rule against using non-peer-reviewed material
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/ipcc_use_of_non-peer_reviewed.php, cited there to the IPCC's documentation.
See that link also for a comparison of the quality of the references used in WGI (good, and highly scrutinized) vs. WG II and III (more local, more opinion).
Anyone who doesn't know the difference between the three working groups' content should.
The Rose situation isn't the first denial of a news (or "news" story: see New Scientist for the earlier one:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18420-climate-chief-admits-error-…
"The Himalaya claim appeared in the regional chapter on Asia.... This week Hasnain has claimed, for the first time, that he was misquoted by New Scientist in 1999.
New Scientist stands by its story and was not the only news outlet to publish Hasnain's claim." (links in the original)
Just because the British, the Americans, and the Indians all speak English does not mean they speak the same language.
James,
The denialists often do embark in "voodoo science". Why did Pachauri have a conflict of interest in the 'glacier research". Which glacier research?
You really do need to be more specific and not make unsubstantiated allegations.
Using your logic, I demand that Inhofe, Lindzen, Watts, Pielke Jnr and Snr (if he is still employed in an official capacity), Plimer, McKitrick, Rose and Delingpole, PM Harper et cetera also be fired on the spot. I'd also insist that McIntyre be fired, but he is allegedly unemployed, unless the FF industry is giving him money.
If you want to talk of a far more concrete conflict of interest, then look in the mirror.
Considering Steve McIntyre's involvement in theis grubby scandal he should open his inbox to an audit so we can verify his role in perpetrating this fraud!
Rosegate, eh? Perhaps I should be flattered. I realise that nothing I write here will make a scrap of difference to you. But I happen to be telling the truth about my interview with Dr Lal. No doubt it's convenient to attack me, rather than focus on the damage done to the IPCC by the publication of the 2035 melting glaciers claim and its shaky evidential basis. But in the end, ad hominem posting such as yours will not get us very far.
RE David Rose
No David, you should be ashamed. You and your colleagues are in the business of selling papers so you focus on the horse race (process) when the real story is the science, which is in the scientific publications and the WGI Report.
Fawning over amateurs like McIntyre while ignoring people who are actually advancing the field may get you prominence among denialist circles and sell papers, but it destroys your credibility among those of us who value science above PR.
"But I happen to be telling the truth about my interview with Dr Lal."
Maybe, but your description of Lal as a "glacier scientist" speaks to a certain sloppiness with facts. And your interaction with McIntyre makes me think that maybe you heard what you wanted to hear.
David Rose,if you would cut the adversarial attitude to exploring these issues,I could take you seriously. Sadly,the arse has fallen out of some journalistic credibility in the UK lately,with ludicrous opinionating,dog-whistling and mob-feeding having taken precedent over the difficult but necessary task of laying out the context and the detail.
Leake,Booker,and Delingpole have shown contempt for the simple (and complex)truth,and dumb hypocrisy in being unwilling or unable to work to the standards that they demand others do.
Take a deep breath,David,and ask yourself whether you want to be in that company.
Arguing with someone from the fascist - since way before fascist was cool - Daily Mail is a waste of time. Go after the people who have so little respect for their readers that they'll CITE the Daily Mail.
[David Rose says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php#comm…):
The answer then is very simple - provide either the relevant portions of the digital voice recording files of the interview, if this is how Lal engaged with you, or provide any relevant exerpts from printed material that he might have supplied to you. This will settle the matter instantly.
Note though that anything that has issued from a Quick Quotes quill, [al la Rita Skeeter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_objects_in_Harry_Potter#Quick_Quot…), cannot be taken as evidence...
So, it should be a cinche to clear the matter up.
And the truth shall set you free...
@David Rose (see if it wasn't a hit-and-run):
I find it rather hard to believe you, considering your recent bodged job involving Mojib Latif's comments and his paper.
Did you already correct the false claim that Keenlyside et al predicts 20-30 years of cooling? If not, why not?
Failure to make the correction, and acknowledge you most likely completely misunderstood Latif, will just show us you are completely unreliable. Be sure to let us know when you have published your correction!
Mr Rose, please don't misuse the ad hominem argument. Tim Lambert as well as Andy Revkin have critiqued your article entirely detached from your character, as they should. If you see this critique as an attack on you personally, then that is unfortunate - but not the fault of either Lambert or Revkin. As it stands it is your word against Dr. Lal, and personally I'm inclined to believe his over yours.
The Daily Fail represents the vanguard of UK gutter journalism. They are handling this whole affair the same way as all their other 'scandals', seemingly under the mistaken impression that if they keep at it long enough, it will all fall apart like a celebrity marriage or a politician's career. Quite how they seem to think that shooting the messenger will somehow change scientific fact is beyond me.
David Rose,
Your assurances that you "happen to be telling the truth" about the interview don't wash. You want us to believe that *you* contacted Dr Lal and he started singing like a canary to someone he didn't know, but when his words were - unexpectedly?! - published he denied them? That's your version of events?! Could it be more likely that a journalist with a version of events already prepared needed just one fact to write the story: that he had *spoken* to Dr Lal? I'm putting my money on the latter.
You continue to undermine your credibility by your determined focus on the supposed "*damage done to the IPCC*" rather than focus on what is important: the core science of climate change, which remains unchanged, and the similarly unchanged fact that [glaciers continue to melt all over the planet](http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/sum08.html). Why do you not communicate these things to your readers? Could it be that you're not really interested in the science? That you're just interested in feeding your gormless readers what they want to read?
And, no, you should not be "flattered". You should be ashamed for hiding the core science behind a relatively minor error. You should be ashamed for undermining climate change science by distracting from the seriousness of it. Of course, if you had any shame or integrity you wouldn't be working for the Daily Mail in the first place!
Talking of the Daily Mail, it's a place where journalistic integrity is discussed only in terms of it being an impediment to [a good story](http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/aqe51/dear_reddit_please_stop_s…). That's who you work for. Your credibility by now appears subterranean to most informed readers.
However, you are correct in one concern: nothing you have written here has made a scrap of difference. And, as you well know, it will make no difference for your readers. Their suspicions have been confirmed, their comforting ignorance has been strengthened. You've done your job.
P.S. I think you can get added to the long list of people who don't understand what an 'ad hominem' argument is. All I see in Professor Lambert's posts are facts wrapped in some light mockery. Mockery is not 'ad hominem'.
I'm with MapleLeaf in demanding the shut-down of WUWT, CA, TechCentralStation, and the whole lot, along with the immediate resignation of all their editors, bloggers, and hangers-on. Their utter incapacity to self-correct or self-reflect is an embarrassment.
Now, as for the typing parrots who turn their invective into wire service copy for profit, I don't think resignation is good enough.
As Delingpole's name has been mentioned, this has to be a new low, even by the standards of the UK media.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jan/27/james-d…
oops, just realised that was mentioned in the previous thread.
David Rose seems to be doing the rounds of the comment sections on blogs critical of his article:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/25/un-scientist-refutes-daily-mail-c…
To David Rose and his assertion of the 'damage' done to the IPCC because of a minor mistake deep within the WG2 report: That supposed damage is being hyped up by people such as yourself and dubious bloggers of Anthony Watts' 'stature', with other media outlets lapping it up grateful for the chance of another exposed 'scandal'.
Let me just remind you of your own words: 'To any journalist being offered *apparently sensational disclosures*, especially from an anonymous intelligence source, I offer two words of advice: caveat emptor.' That applies to *known* sources just as much.
C'mon David Rose.
I knew right away after reading your article that it was implausible (i.e. before Dr. Lal's response), and it was especially obvious considering your track record. Have you retracted your attributions regarding Latif yet? (Not to mention the false attributions of the NSIDC in the same article). Did you not consider that Lal's statements, which you attributed in your article, would be ridiculous for him to say, even if they were true? Your assertions are beyond absurd. This is some of the worst journalism I've ever seen. This isn't just a spin of what was said. What Dr. Lal said doesn't even resemble anything you attributed to him. I don't know how it is possible to be so far off the mark, without intentional deceit.
It's one thing to have an agenda. It's another thing to deliberately distort facts in favor of that agenda.
For the record, I don't work for the Daily Mail but the Mail on Sunday. so far as Dr Latif is concerned, yesterday the Guardian published this letter:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/challenging-times-cli…
You report (Cold snap does not undermine climate case â scientist, 12 January) that Professor Mojib Latif of Kiel University, a leading member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has attacked as "misleading" my article in the Mail on Sunday (10 January), stating that I wrongly claimed that his work "undermines the scientific case for manmade global warming".
At no point in my piece did I say that it does. I merely quoted him, accurately, saying that his team's work suggests that up to half the global warming observed in recent decades was due not to greenhouse gases but long-term ocean temperature cycles. These, he went on, have now entered a "cold" mode, and that as a result, we can expect more cold winters and a slight, though temporary, cooling. Prof Latif told me: "Global warming has paused," adding that the extreme glacial retreats and icecap melting seen recently would for the time being cease.
Such predictions, I wrote, "challenge some of global warming orthodoxy's most cherished beliefs", including the assertion that the north pole will be ice-free in summer by 2013. Latif told me that this is most unlikely to be realised. His work may not undermine the science of manmade warming, but it does challenge standard media representations of its imminent consequences.
David Rose
Oxford
Rose, many journalsists record their interviews. There is a very simple way to clear your name, make those unedited electronic files of the interview with Lal public.
Either you or Lal are seriously distorting and/or lying. Now given your propensity to distort and misinform, as was clearly demonstrated with your Latif article, I am reluctant to take your word for it. Only a listen to the audio files will convince me otherwise. Sorry, but this is what happens to your integrity when you fail to do your job properly, sooner or later people no longer be willing to take your word for something.
You and your clan (Mr McIntyre) are all about transparency and truth. So I say "Release the audio files, release the truth".
Are you game?
This is not one of "global warming orthodoxy's most cherished beliefs". You're lying.
Of course not. Putting up a strawman then knocking it down is an interesting journalist approach, don't you think?
How are those WMDs in Iraq treatin' ya?
PS. I can't help noticing how there's a pattern here: climate scientists find their views expressed to journalists make an unexpected impact, so they claim they were misquoted - even if, as in the case of Syed Hasnain and his interview with Fred Pearce, they wait 11 years to do so.
Listen up. I've been a journalist for almost 30 years. I've never misquoted anyone, and until I wrote about Dr Lal, no one had ever claimed I had. (Dr Latif signally did NOT claim I misquoted him. The Guardian claimed I had written something I hadn't and then used him to knock that down.)
Yes, I got it wrong over Iraq, to my everlasting and intense regret. So did a lot of other people, and not just journalists, either. Unlike almost all of them, I have publicly and repeatedly expressed my shame and sorrow. But this time - over what Dr Lal said - I am right. Over and out.
David,
Setting aside the question of whether or not you quoted Latif accurately, it seems obvious that he does not hold the opinions that your article implies. Doesn't that merit clarification, regardless of whose "fault" it is?
Regards,
Bruce
Mapleleaf: I did not record my interview with Lal. I took notes. Next time I speak to any climate scientist I will record the interview, if they give me permission.
This has now degenerated into abuse, so this is my final contribution.
David Rose, look, even assume the worst of everyone else and utter innocence on your part -- the innocence would be part of the problem.
Say your editor picked you because you lack background in the area, told you a bunch of stuff to bias you, and sent you off after a predetermined story, and you phoned a number someone gave you, and you talked to some guy on the other side of the world who you think was the person with whom you intended to be speaking, someone who speaks a very different kind of English, someine in a rather different culture, and you talked, and you wrote some stuff down, and you wrote a story, and your editor improved it and published it, and some headline writer spun it egregiously.
Say it was all other people's fault.
STILL, you need to do your job.
And do it for, and follow up with, other writers -- Sciencenews wrote something based on your story; USNews wrote something based on their story about your story
See the problem?
Self-esteem and trust. Way too much of both.
I recommend more doubt, more suspicion -- and verification.
Or as Mr. Reagan put it: "Trust, but verify."
Maybe you were set up and fooled. Nobody can tell.
That's the problem here.
Re my comment in #27: Sorry, I meant Lal, not Latif.
James Haughten, the WWF document re the Amazon is here:
http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2000-047.pdf
FWIW, North (from EU referendum) claimed that, beyond its being grey Lit, he couldn't find the information that the IPCC said was in this document, in the document. When the relevant section was pointed out to him, he retracted that bit and made more claims about innacurate cites that (as far as I can tell) are also BS.
Thanks David, @23, especially for adding Oxford at the bottom. I am impressed, not.
You have many corrections and apologies to issue. And we have to see one yet.
Your refusal to set the records straight on Latif is deeply troubling. At this rate no self-respecting scientists will agree to be interviewed by you. The denialists will of course, but you are not exactly unbiased and impartial are you now? See for example, your public fawning over McIntyre.
I am curious, did you even for one second contemplate reading the Keenlyside et al. paper? Did yo for one second consider running your text by Dr. Latif to make sure that your text was accurate? That is what credible and reputable journalists that I have dealt with have done. Doing just one of those things would have clearly shown that the text you had written to be factually incorrect.
Rose ""Global warming has paused," adding that the extreme glacial retreats and icecap melting seen recently would for the time being cease."
I hope that you are misquoting and/or distorting again. Temporarily "cease"?! If that is indeed Latif's understanding then he is sadly mistaken. That is also troubling b/c the NAO does not teleconnect to the Antarctic Peninsula or Andes, for example. And any cooling or slow down in warming will be almost exclusively limited to the N. Atlantic and immediate vicinity. And I am not pontificating here, look at the data just released from the WGMS and other metrics on the state of the GLOBAL cryosphere. Had you bothered to read the Keenlyside paper then the title would have been an immediate giveaway on the regional focus of the Keenlyside et al paper:
"Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the "
Rose "including the assertion that the north pole will be ice-free in summer by 2013"
Now you are cherry picking! Where did you source this? I suspect that this is one extreme outlier stated by someone who is perhaps not quite in the know. They may be correct, but the odds of that happening are extremely, extremely low. It certainly did not come from the IPCC. But you weasel worded it to fall under the very broad umbrella of all those faithful warmers, which you believe to included the IPCC.
Go over to DeepClimate, in which a do a step-by-step take down of your Latif article. I only got thought he first half, and had already amassed many errors, distortions and misrepresentations.
http://deepclimate.org/2010/01/11/mojib-latif-slams-daily-mail/#comments
Rose on Latif "his team's work suggests that up to half the global warming observed in recent decades was due not to greenhouse gases but long-term ocean temperature cycles. "
Many climate scientists would disagree with Dr. Latif on that statement. Regardless, he provided a range of values David. What was it? Why did you not give readers all the information?
Rose on Latif "we can expect more cold winters and a slight, though temporary, cooling"
Yes, perhaps in western Europe, N. Atlantic and portions of central and eastern N. America. NOT the globe. This January, UAH MSU global tropospheric temperature data are going to be the highest in the satellite record, despite the unusually cold weather in Eurasia and portions of N. America.
So there you have it, here even trying to weasel out of making an apology and issuing corrections, you manage to introduce more errors and distortions.
PS: Can we listen to the tapes form the Latif interview too please? Thanks.
David Rose said:
Yes, your articles have degenerated into abusing climate science and climate scientists. You are a sorry excuse for what used to be considered a reputable occupation.
By the way, do you and your editor share the stuffed brown envelope slid under his door? Or do you just get patted on the head with the words, "good dog, you have done a good job"?
David @28,
Thanks for clarifying. OK, show us your notes then please. You have nothing to hide right?
As for your claims of "abuse", you are the one abusing your journalistic privileges David, and abusing the confidence that scientists bestowed on you. As for any verbal "abuse" that you may be getting here, it is in my opinion, well earned by your very own actions and your inaction to set the record straight in the media. Scientists are none too pleased with their work being misrepresented by journalists with agendas, and indeed by their unwarranted attack on science.
Best of luck, you will need it. And good luck trying to get a scientists to take an interview with you again.
Correction to #32. Sorry tried to use html and screwed up. The title of the paper is of course:
"Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector"
David Rose, you are quite the spindoctor. Too bad we can all read your article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-m…
Which states in the start:
"The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the worldâs most eminent climate scientists."
It is obvious from the remainder of the article that those "most eminent climate scientists" are Tsonis and Latif. But Latif NEVER claimed that we'll now get 20-30 years of cooling!
You also claimed that:
"He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September."
Too bad that you are wrong once again. The following graph shows the prediction in the Keenlyside et al paper of 2008:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/images/nature06921-f4.2…
Please show me where those 20-30 years of cooling are that they supposedly predicted.
Also, Latif never stated what you claim he stated in Geneva. Deepclimate has some key excerpts (you can check them yourself):
http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/02/key-excerpts-from-mojib-latifs-wcc-pr…
And then you are surprised we are skeptical of the remainder of your quotes?
You also added this outrageous lie:
"The scientistsâ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise."
That's most definately not what the models say!
I see a case of confirmation bias: you heard what you wanted to hear, you read what you want to read.
David Rose,
Even before Latif had clarified his comments, or the "warmist" blogs picked up on it, I had figured out he was being misrepresented in your article (though to your defense, this isn't the first time Latif has been wrongly cited). You know very well that he doesn't agree with you. And you misrepresent his scientific findings in the non-quoted part of your article. He's not predicting an ice age. He's not even predicting that temperatures are going to flatten out. He is suggsting the possibilty of a temporary flattening out (depending on the sensitivity of PDO/AMO, which isn't well understood). But your ice age article goes way over the top, and you spin sources that don't agree with you, to give the impression that they agree with you.
For crying out loud, the NSIDC isn't predicting an ice age, and using a single data point (i.e. 2007) as a base period is cherry picking at its worst. Using a more representative base period, 2009 was way below normal, and was the third lowest sea ice extent on record. And that's not all. Sea ice extent doesn't tell you the story about multi-year ice, which isn't recovering. As far as volume, 2008 was record setting for lowest volume. (I haven't heard how 2009 compares yet). The downward trend is obvious to anyone that looks at the long-term graphs, and it is also obvious that there is substantial annual variability. It's almost statistically meaningless to compare one data point to the most extreme data point.
It's like trying to compare your height and weight to Shaquille O'Neal. Do you know what quote mining is? It's fine to quote someone if what you are quoting is fairly representing the person's thinking. But, you know this isn't what happened. What you have been doing is unethical.
"As Europe, Asia and North America froze last week, conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a 'blip' of no long-term significance. "
Do you still stand by this statement? Take a look at UAH daily temperatures for the lower troposphere. January 2010 will most certainly be the hottest January on record according to satellite readings that are compiled by a group of climate skeptics, so it is blatantly obvious that yeah, conventional wisdom is right, a cold spell is what it is. Cold air moved in from the Arctic to England. The Arctic got warmer. Meanwhile, my local weather had 2 consecutive weeks of temperatures averaging 15C above normal. What do you think of conventional wisdom now? A negative Arctic Oscillation reading doesn't imply a change in global temperature. It's a change in atmospheric circulations.
But you don't stop there, you associate Latif's findings with your claim that weather in England is evidence of global cooling. You can't be serious. This is the type of thing that happens when people start forming their own hypotheses without having any expertise in what they are talking about, nor having any reputable sources to back up your hypotheses. You shouldn't cite people who disagree with your hypothesis as evidence that your hypothesis is true. It's highly arrogant to think you are on to something, when there doesn't exist a single expert who would connect the dots like you have (i.e. connecting multi-decadal ocean oscillations with a sudden cold snap in England). It's bizarre.
Marco @36, good points.
Yes, for a few moments there my Rose even almost had me convinced of his innocence.
He claims to never have misquoted anyone? Hmm, does that period include the present day, or just until the time when he started fawning over McIntyre?
Regardless of his rather bizarre claim, his articles are riddled with factual errors, distortions and misrepresentations of the scientific facts.
Over population, mad cow disease, millenium bug, bird flu, swine flu, AGW, 'et al':
"As I foretold you, were all spirits,and
Are melted into air, into thin air:"
But don't worry chaps, and 'chappesses', there will be another 'end of the world' scenario along very shortly for you to get excited about - there always is - and there are always plenty of you to swallow it whole. Such fun!
Duff, do you actually have anything of substance to add to this discussion on Rose or are you just trying to use this as an opportunity to spout more utter BS?
I see, ethics and integrity and accountability are not even remotely high on your list of priorities.
Now, please, go crawl back under a rock.
David Duff seems happy to display his poor reasoning skills and ignorance.
Too many straw men to waste time on, too many ridiculous leaps in logic (problem X gets solved therefore X never was a problem, duh!) and way too much conflation of a priori uncertainty of the nature of a problem with how that problem actually developed.
if David Rose is right or wrong, I do not care. I think, you should consider misunderstandings, cold feets of Dr Lal, many other things. In dubio pro reo(I cannot speak Latin but I can google ;))
I am baffled that there weren't any big stories about the WG II report before. Did I miss them? I mean, think about it: all glaciers in Himalaya gone in 2035. That should have been a big headline in every newspaper, shouldn't it? Were there any big headlines? Did guys like David Rose report about the findings in the WG II report in detail? I do not think so. They did not read it. They read the summary for policy makers. That's it. Obviously, this 2035 claim was not in this summary.
I must assume, journalists like David are more interested in errors than in real results? Why?
PS: of course, the error is embarrassing and it was so unnecessary. Hope, the IPCC process will be improved.
ghost, maybe they even went as far as reading the synthesis report, but afaik it wasn't in there either. I think the bigger issue is not the typo (2350 <-> 2035) - these things happen. It's unfortunate and measures need to be taken to prevent things like this from happening again. The bigger issue, however, is the way Panchauri handled this - fairly heavy-handedly. I appreciate that him and his organisation are likely under daily fire but it's in times like these that the IPCC needs calm leadership. I fear the "voodoo science" will come back to haunt him.
But now, in come the denier mob and demand the entire dismantlement of this massive enterprise. Please, get real. If that is the standard by which institutions and organisations should be measured, then the Daily Mail, Fox News, SPPI, Heartland etc. should not only be dismantled, but blown up, bulldozered and their ashes scattered across the seven oceans.
Rose gets his 2013 claim from here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm
Obviously a cherry-pick and not the 'orthodox' 'belief'. Note how Rose uses terminology more usually associated with religion when discussing climate science.
You would be hard pushed to find a more unbalanced and biased piece of journalism.
That's the point, he takes a claim by one scientist who's way out of the mainstream - as your article points out, other modeling teams come up with dates ranging from 2040-2100 - and says:
Which is nothing less than a lie.
David Rose's 'most cherished belief' is that others should respect his right to confuse opinion with reportage.
IMO, the most important outcome of this episode may be that,at last,in 2010, he will put aside the time to actually study IPCC AR4 2007..
The scientific community has a range of predictions concerning when we could see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. It could be as early as 2013 or as late as 2100. NSIDCâs projections generally fall somewhere in the lower half of this range.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#really_declining
Hank Roberts,
Oh wow!. Somebody you don't appreciate writes an article and it gets quoted by all sorts of internet sites. This is bad.
Meanwhile, those you agree with can write stuff and have it reported ad nauseam and that's ok.
Oh Hank you really disappoint me.
Well how about this from Lal,
" I have put my heart and soul for almost 20 years into the IPCC Science Assessment Process,â
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55682/title/Indian_climatolo….
So as a 'corporate man' he only did what the organisation wanted him to do.
Dave Andrews, I hear that David Duff is looking for some company under his rock. Like Duff and others of your ilk, accuracy, ethics, professionalism and accountability are apparently not high on your list of priorities. Why am I not surprised. And you wonder why the denialists have long had a serious credibility issue.
Oh Wow Dave Andrews,
Your reduce [Hanks comments](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php#comm…) to [your own misrepresentation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php#comm…).
Oh Dave you are ceaseless maintaining your low standards.
Could someone please point Darryl&Darryl, I mean Dave and David, to a nice cosy rock!
Lal's account is certainly believable, after all the IPCC does not conduct research as such, it only collates published research. It is still unfortunate though that a group would write about something like glaciers without involving a glaciologist - how are they expected to separate fact from fiction? I think this is a serious problem with the IPCC's methods. You can't claim on the one hand "science supports this position" and on the other hand "well, we're not really experts, we were just parroting what we found in the literature". Although I believe that such cases are a minority exception, the IPCC should be aware of the issue and address it.
I'm willing to cut David Rose some slack.
I can accept that he may not have deliberately mangled Mojib.
The Mail on Sunday editor just had to take a journo un-educated in the science arena, hook them up for a bit of AGW priming with Steve McIntyre and then let them loose in the direction of a real scientist.
An article getting it badly wrong on the science and influenced by irrational 'skepticism' was a sure thing.
The editor is probably still patting himself on the back.
David Rose - or the vacuum that was formerly occupied by you, as you appear to have turned tail and fled...
[Back at #11](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php#comm…) I asked you to provide "either the relevant portions of the digital voice recording files of the interview, if this is how Lal engaged with you, or [to] provide any relevant exerpts from printed material that he might have supplied to you". You will note that I specifically excluded "anything that has issued from a Quick Quotes quill, [al la Rita Skeeter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_objects_in_Harry_Potter#Quick_Quot…)".
Yet at [post #28](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php#comm…) you say:
This, from someone who [says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php#comm…):
"[N]ever misquoted", huh? How can you be so sure if you did not record the interviews on tape or on a DVR? If fact, how can one be "a journalist for almost 30 years" and not routinely use voice recording technology? Heck, even a telephone conversation is trivially able to be recorded these days - what competent journalist does not do this?!
I've been interviewed a number of times by radio and by newspaper journalists, by 'phone and in person, and they always use voice recording, and they always routinely ask for permission to do so. No interviewee these days would be troubled by such a request, if they have already given permission for an interview in the first place.
In this day and age, and especially with the inflammatory bent that you take, using a 'Quick Quotes Quill' is unacceptable as a method for documenting evidence for supporting anything that you write. It's second-hand information - hearsay - and vulnerable to deliberate distortion. And it is both carte blanche for retrospective 'adjustments' to suit occasions exactly like this current one, and open to the phenomenon of Chinese whispers.
You flatter yourself with the apellation of "journalist"; for mine, much less charitable terms spring to mind...
I would suggest to all scientists who may become interviewees that they make use of a digital voice recorder (mobile phone, computer, special device, whatever) to preserve both their statements and the interviewer's questions. Assume that from the moment you agree to an interview that you are "on the clock" and may be quoted, even on trivial, seemingly irrelevant and off-topic issues (like agreeing that the weather is unusually cold/warm for this time of year, etc).
Should you later discover that the interviewer has attributed quotes to you that you did not make, simply release the entire audio file to a site like this one. Your reputation will remain intact and the journalist is revealed as a Rita Skeeter without a shadow of doubt.
Make sure that you understand the rules governing the recording of conversations first, just in case some archaic law could see you in the soup (assuming that you covertly record the interview).
Now, about those notes that you - ie David Rose - claim to have written while interviewing. Could you please put them up on the web for all to see, and if possible provide some evidence that they were written at the time of the interview and not more recently? Just to be clear in everyone's minds that the notes are your record from the actual interview, and not a later reconstruction from memory. If you have a voice recording that would be most helpful too.
I thought you didn't like conspiracies.
> For the record, I don't work for the Daily Mail but the Mail on Sunday.
I knew - *knew* - that he would respond with that utterly irrelevant pedantry. The Mail on Sunday is part of Daily Mail and General Trust plc, so he does work for the 'Daily Mail'.
Anyway, good to see the locals here have picked over the bones of Rose's credibility and there's nothing left....
Rose wrote:
"Such predictions, I wrote, "challenge some of global warming orthodoxy's most cherished beliefs", including the assertion that the north pole will be ice-free in summer by 2013. "
Even the most cursory examination of the literature including the IPCC reports would tell you that the scientific consensus is that north pole will not likely be ice free by 2013.
But you write the opposite.
David, I very much like and respect Oxford and its population, none more so than David Kelly, who tried to tell you the truth of Iraq's non-existent WMDs but who you ignored, despite his obvious expertise and personal knowledge which contrasted vividly with the transparent bollocks being fed to us by people you awarded credibility they didn't deserve.
"45 MINUTES FROM DOOM"
You're doing it again.
McIntyre is unqualified.
Monckton is a screaming loon.
Plimer is a bullshit artist.
Take care with your sources.
"I would suggest to all scientists who may become interviewees that they make use of a digital voice recorder (mobile phone, computer, special device, whatever) to preserve both their statements and the interviewer's questions."
I would suggest anybody at al refuse any request for interview from either the Daily or the Sunday Mail
I have to tell you, folks, and I admit that it gives me enormous, almost dribbling, pleasure to do so, that recent posts and threads here, adn elsewhere, represent, not so much the act of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but squabbling over whether they should face east or west!
It's going, people! The good ship 'Global Change' run by that less than salubrious shipping line, AGW Inc., is sinking fast. I regret to inform you that your ship's officers have steered you onto (delicious irony) an iceberg which according to them should have melted years ago, and your honourary Commodore, Adm. Gore, is likely to be the first into the lifeboat. I advise you to do the same and paddle away as fast as you can lest the undertow drags you down.
And fear not, even as I write, a rescue ship is fast approaching over the horizon, the SS. 'Exploding Meteor'. This has plenty of space on board for anyone who wants to fill their empty lives by worrying about the end of the world. Hurry, hurry, don't miss the boat ...
Yeah, yeah, Duff, whatever you say. We've been hearing that from the denier side for years. Besides, considering the threadtheme: Non sequitur much?
"I admit that it gives me enormous, almost dribbling, pleasure to do so..."
You know that the display of such behaviour usually means being carted off to the funny farm.
@David Duff
Off-topic, juvenile, insulting, and fractally wrong.
David Duff.
As ever [you are full of empty rhetoric](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php#comm…).
If you actuall;y have a single piece of substance upon which you base your claims, try answering [any of these questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…
) to even a modicum of adequacy.
I will predict right now that you can't.
The Duffer:
Duff information = ∅
Well, that didn't render very well did it. It's the empty set symbol.
The good ship 'Global Change' run by that less than salubrious shipping line, AGW Inc., is sinking fast.
nice one. as Chris said, GISS just showed us that 2009 was the second warmest year on record. UAH AMSU is showing us the warmest january on record.
if the AGW ship keeps sinking like this, it will tur into a plane soon...
but you wouldn t be a "sceptic" if you knew the difference between up and down, would you?
North pole ice free by 2013 is not the same as arctic ice-free by 2013. Estimates of ice-free arctic summers had a wide variation
For cherished beliefs one should consult a religious, economic or political philosophy.