Himalayan glaciers

Reporting about 2035 error full of errors

tlambert — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 05:24:44 +0000

Reporting about 2035 error full of errors

Bidisha Banerjee and George Collins have written the definitive account of the error in the WG2 report about Himalayan glaciers:

Dozens of articles and analyses of this situation, whether dashed-off blog posts or New York Times coverage, exhibit a curious consistency. Not a single article or analysis appears to include all relevant issues without introducing at least one substantial error. It's as though the original documents contained a curse which has spread to infect every commentator and reporter. The curse seems to stem from not reading sources carefully (or at all), which, ironically, was the IPCC Working Group II's central failing, and also a major issue in the documents that were the basis of the defective paragraph.

tlambert Fri, 02/05/2010 - 00:24

Tags

global warming

Glaciergate

Himalayan glaciers

IPCC

global warming

Because it seems like when you get down to it, the UN/IPCC is a political org, so they play games with things so as to appease the right people politically, and make back-room deals etc. which is not a good thing to do when you are trying to present science. The UN seems to screw up everything, so maybe it's time for national groups/funding/research orgs to present the science without the UN trying to wrap it all up and do the usual political games.

Carl,

Try here:

well, yeah, but the point being the UN declares itself the final word on global warming, and they've done at best a real cock-up of a job (presumably because they have to appease politicians, scientists, and politician/scientists).

Carl,

You mean like the Bush Administration insisting on the appointment of a railroad engineer as chief administrator with the expectation he would be favorably biased to the fossil fuel industry? Quite the cock-up that turned out to be.

Rosegate: David Rose caught misrepresenting another scientist

tlambert — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:06:41 +0000

Rosegate: David Rose caught misrepresenting another scientist

You can add the George Kaser to the list that includes Pielke Jr, Latif and Lal. It's like he can't help himself.

Rose claimed that he was told by Kaser that he wrote to Lal:

I'm not the only person in disagreement with Dr Lal. Georg Kaser, the Austrian glaciologist, insists (indeed, he told me last week) he wrote to Lal, warning him not to include the 2035 glacier melting date in AR4. Lal says he got no such letter.

But Kaser says that he didn't write to Lal:

Dr. Kaser, who has been a report author and has also studied the retreating snows around Mount Kilimanjaro, said Monday in a telephone interview that he had sent the information to a "technical support unit" at the climate change panel rather to the lead authors directly. Dr. Kaser said he chose not to go "straightforward, to the lead authors" because "it is always a delicate matter" when criticizing other colleagues' findings.

And Kaser's message was not passed on to Lal:

>[Dr. van Ypersele] added that he had examined records of e-mail messages and found that the authors had never received the pertinent message from Dr. Kaser. Furthermore, Dr. Kaser's "most pointed criticism" of the findings on glacial melting came after the contents of the report had been completed, Dr. van Ypersele said.

Via Dez in [comments](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…) I find [another example of David Rose style quoting](http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/01/british-medias-blonde-moment.h…).

tlambert Fri, 01/29/2010 - 21:06

Tags

50 internet bucks on Rose saying "BUT KASER DISAGREES WITH LAL! HA! I WIN! I WIN!"

Any takers?

So: David Rose, a British journalist working for the Mail group of newspapers, has been exposed as a dissembler and a serial distorter of his source's information.
You realise there is a well-established forcing for this phenomenon, don't you? It's called a large treble scotch. No mishtake, shurely!

In an unguarded, casual moment, the person being interviewed makes a remarkable comment. The recorder is not running because the reporter is only looking for a couple of quotes to give weight to the story.

The reporter follows the same routine, but once in a while someone becomes embarrassed and claim they have been misquoted. I believe David Rose and voted accordingly.

Wow el gordo, with an imagination and politics like yours I can't understand why you are unemployed as a journo. You should fit right in with the Murdoch oligarchy.

I assume you'd also vote for Rose over Latif & with Rose over Kaser? Cos Rose has already declared that he's ["never misquoted anyone"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php#comm…). That's just before he was sprung for having misquoted [someone else](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…).

And on the subject of how discerning a judge you are, you still haven't answered my [last question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2218…). You got really cocky about Lu and made a bunch of over-confident snipes about Lu's superiority to the rest of climate scientist, just before you chucked Lu under the bus.

So who was the source that you believed about Lu? (like you now believe Rose). And why are you shy to reveal where you get this kind of info from? Why would you be loyal to sources that keep embarrassing you by feeding you disinformation?

Well here we go again. The notes of my short conversation with Kaser say he told me he wrote to the coordinating lead authors in September 2006. Graham Cogley told me the same thing. I put it to Lal, and he said he hadn't received the letter.

So, maybe Kaser misspoke: after all, he was speaking in a foreign language. Either way, he tried to draw the attention of the IPCC to the error, but was ignored. Meanwhile, you will have seen this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

I can't help imagining David Rose being pulled over for speeding.
PC: Do you have any idea of how fast you were going, sir?
DR: I was under the limit; it's here in my notes.

David Rose,

over a time span as short as 2 month, you have been caught misrepresenting 4 scientists, one among them a sceptic.

the idea that all 4 of them "misspoke" is simply stupid.

it is much more likely, that you are just getting stuff wrong all the time. i am sorry, but as a journalist you lost the tiny bit of credibility you had left..

I haven't been "caught". I've been accused in an extremely hostile internet forum. It's a very different thing. And this really is my last post.

As gullible as they come:

The recorder is not running because the reporter is only looking for a couple of quotes to give weight to the story

And when you're looking for quotation out of context, you don't want anyone to know the context.

This really is my last post. Before my next one.

This is a scandal I will be writing to my MP about this. There are billions of dollars and the lives of millions at stake on this issue and these so-called "journalists", are just running around distorting and misrepresenting the words of scientists.

Perhaps if these "journalists" had stuck to hard sciences instead of "media studies" (or whatever rubbish they teach in schools these days) they wouldn't be so prone to their subjectivism and "imagining" reality as they believe it.

[Rose](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis…).

You just stagger from bad to worse to worst to worstest, to worstester.

So, maybe Kaser misspoke: after all, he was speaking in a foreign language.

So, Kaser spoke to you in a foreign language, but it was he who "misspoke"?

In which "foreign language" did he speak to you, and just how proficient are you in that language, and exactly how do you discount the very real alternative that you either consciously or subconsciously 'mis-heard' what was spoken to you, in a language foreign to you?

I suggest that you quit whilst you are only a train wreck.

let me repost:

David Rose: (January 28, 2010 )

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.

Roger Pielke: (12 December 2009)

there is a misquote of my comments that I think needs to be corrected.

sorry David, but this is GETTING CAUGHT, not "being accused".

you certainly struggle with facts, don t you?

David Rose @ 6,without passing judgement, maybe Kaser wasn't so much 'ignored' as 'overlooked' which would be regrettable, but not very sexy. To speculate as to why is ...speculation. It's all about choosing ones words carefully,isn't it?

So Dr Pachauri,busy in the lead up to Copenhagen,didn't jump on being reminded about a paragraph in AR4 WG2. I could not care less for further speculation or insinuation of motive. Many people realised long ago that there is a huge volume of science to assimilate,and to keep updated,covering climate,within the full IPCC works and without. Maybe trying to put Pachauri's head on a stick is more important for you?

"In which "foreign language" did he speak to you, and just how proficient are you in that language...?"

To be fair to Rose, I assume he meant that Kaser spoke to him in English, which for Kaser would be a foreign language.

Not that this excuses anything.

The Economist apparently got the Kaser story down accurately; why is it so hard for everybody else? (Though they don't go into the detail of how Kaser submitted his comments).

[Economist on glaciers and Kaser](http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15…)

Hilarious. Especially the bit where Rose returns - *definitely* the last time *this* time - to bleat about how unfairly he's being treated for being caught.

Comedy gold.

Internet, please meet an enthusiastic new user, David Rose.

Bernard J #12 - its spelt Worcester, actually.

[Steve Reuland](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis…).

Good point about Kaser speaking English as a second ("foreign") language - although I have to say that all of my Austrian friends speak it so fluently that there is never any problem with matters of translation.

However, as you also point out, this does nothing to exonerate Rose. In fact it simply makes it worse in my personal opinion - not applying careful consideration, clarification, and corroboration to the words of a non-native English speaker is careless non-professionalism indeed, even if the conversation appears to flow without difficulty. Even the words of an Oxbridge speaker should be carefully reviewed, where the interviewer is untrained in the science of the matters raised in the conversation.

It is especially pernicious to accuse said non-native English speaker of mis-speaking. Kaser might have known exactly what he was saying, and it might well have been completely understandable to someone technically proficient in the scientific area being discussed. In this case it is Rose whose ignorance leads him to mis-understand, and the fact that he did nothing to clarify the matter is simply a reflection of his lack of serious journalistic professionalism.

[The comic strip](http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623) that Tim Lambert linked to in the "[Rosegate scandal still growing](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…)" thread illustrates exactly why care and diligent professionalism should be exercised by any interviewer.

Ultimately though, it all requires the interviewer to demonstrate integrity and objectivity to start with...

8 David Rose,

In case you come back, yes this is a hostile forum. It is hostile to anyone who lies about or misrepresents science and scientists. Perhaps you could learn a thing or 2...

It is hostile to anyone who lies about or misrepresents science and scientists.

Personally, I'm hostile to anyone who lies about anything ... :)

"So, maybe Kaser misspoke: after all, he was speaking in a foreign language."

The language of Science...

If we were all a bit less hostile, we'd be able to see that Rose is a preternaturally decent and honest man who's always right regardless of any appearances to the country.

I mean, Rose is a journalist. They don't let just anyone do important work like that.

I can't see listing a political science degree holder (Lomborg, Pielke Jr.) as a scientist. Nor a person with only a bachelor's degree in math (McIntyre).

Especially as the net knowledge Pielke, Jr., Lomborg or McIntyre, let alone McKitrick display about climate science is very low.

Pielke, Sr., is a scientist, however confused he might be by ideology or whatever. But Jr. is not. I just think there are bad consequences to adding the ad-hoc non-scientist to the category. Look how Judith Curry defends (endlessly) McIntyre as if he were a scientist.

We went through a lot of this with creation science.

> I've been accused in an extremely hostile internet forum.

Not this one. I'm still asking who the appropriate editor was for the PielkeJr correction, did you ever get that addressed? Sounds like you were already captured by the McIntyre worldview, and that whoever assigned you this story knew it.
They may have set you up.

Tim,

Again tilting at windmills. Kaser wrote to the IPCC secretariat. One would assume that if they were doing their job properly they would have passed the emails on to Lal.

They didn't - for whatever reason?

Still you can still say that Kaser was writing to Lal, so nothing wrong there with Rose's analysis

Marion Delgado,

You're going backwards! The logic of what you are saying is that only scientists in a particular field can comment on what other scientists in that field say.

This is rubbish. For example, much of what climate scientists do involves complex statistics, They are not, generally, trained statisticians as well as climate scientists. They should therefore actively seek the help of statisticians in their work. But it is manifest that they do not.

SteveM is a statistician with long experience in using statistical methods. He has every right to comment upon the use of statistics by climate scientists.

This is an 'extremely hostile internet forum' and will remain so even after global warming has disappeared off the political landscape.

Stop badgering me about Lu, I was taking the piss.

David Rose,

Much easier to fabricate a scandal and misrepresent the facts, than to do some real investigative journalism. The Economist got the story right, they clearly seem to require higher standards of their journalists, so you have no excuse.

Yes, the image of Dr. Pachauri's head on a stick might be sexy to you and others, but you are missing the real story. The irony that you repeatedly choose to misrepresent the science, scientists and IPCC, while demanding perfection and making completely unrealistic expectations of the same people/groups, sadly seems to be lost on you.

How about you apply your "investigative skills" to get at the real story here. The assault on science and scientists by right-wing lobby groups. There is enough material and evidence there that even my toddler could join the dots-- Yet, the media stay silent on how the science and scientists are being harassed, intimidated, misrepresented and worse by these groups. I suppose "doing in" the IPCC is much sexier for some, or is that just what your war lords wish of you?

How about you investigate your friends, McIntyre and McKitrick, Watts, Morano, Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton, Plimer, Pat Michaels and others (it is a very long list). How about you place them under the same scrutiny and hold them to the same unrealistic standard as the IPCC, and then parade their heads on sticks? You are not biased, are you? The fact that the aforementioned individuals (M&M et al.) are the people actually repeatedly screwing up, deceiving and distorting and using alarmist language seems to be lost on you.

A suggestion, when you start claiming that "they all got it wrong, it is/was not me", then you sound just like your mentor McIntyre.

Re: Dave Andrews | January 30, 2010 3:43 PM: "For example, much of what climate scientists do involves complex statistics, They are not, generally, trained statisticians as well as climate scientists..."

Actually, climate scientists generally are also trained statisticians. Helmut Landsberg led to statistical analysis being used in climatology, which led to its evolution into a physical science.

Steve McIntyre is not a trained statistical analyst to my knowledge (I'd like to see his actual qualifications in statistical anlaysis cited please), he's a mathematician which is not the same thing.

'Mathematical statistics' are concerned with the theoretical basis of the subject, but 'statistical analysis' is the science of making effective use of numerical data.

In other words, a mathematician is not automatically qualified to perform statistical analysis, but a climatologist is.

Someone spouted "SteveM is a statistician with long experience in using statistical methods."

Err, actually McI he is a mathematician, of sorts anyways-- McI certainly not in the same league as Dr. Gavin Schmidt and others.

McI loves to pontificate, and to avoid publishing at all costs. That is not how the science moves forward. McI is an obstructionist and loves to harass and embark on character assassinations, libel and witch hunts. And what McI does he certainly does not do in 'good faith' as he frequently likes to lie about in public. Amazing that he has avoided being audited, but then it is difficult to do so when he does not publish. His blog, however, has been discredited several times.

He does have a UofT email account and one can, with many good and valid reasons, demand to see his emails. McKitrick also has a university account. Anyone interested in trying to determine their role, if any, in ClimateGate? Or how they scheme and manipulate and corroborate behind the scenes to flood CRU with FOIA claims, for example? How funds might be exchanged perhaps....

So much to find out.....

McIntyre has only a bachelor's in math - which is nothing. He also has experience in mining. It's not that he doesn't have relevant credentials, it's that he doesn't have credentials. Furthermore, he's inept too often in too many areas for it not to grate on people who even have a better lay knowledge of the relevant science in areas which he writes about. As well as the facts - when McIntyre was claiming Hansen was claiming 1998 was the hottest year in the contiguous US, I had info from Hansen that 1936 was, by a tiny margin, and I'd gotten a newsletter from an environmental organiztion saying 1998 was the 2nd hottest year in the contiguous US after 1936.

In many ways, people like Tim Lambert, e.g., don't have relevant credentials for some things Pielke, Jr. or McIntyre or Lomborg get into, but the difference is, they, like most of us, fall back on the body of scientific knowledge, which, frankly, uneducated (in the relevant science) people like Pielke, Jr. and McIntyre are simply not qualified to challenge or refute, and which they cannot fall back on because they reject it for poitical or ideological reasons.

Notice, too, that in the case lately where Dr. Lambert (Computer Science) was dealing in his area of expertise he knew what language the CRU code was written in, among other thing, and Eric S. Raymond, even though it's his area of expertise as well, did not. When the climate denialist amateurs butt heads with people who know what they're talking about - vs. "Tamino" in time series, or "Eli Rabbett" in spectral analysis, or Keith Briffa in dendrochronology or Jeff Severinghaus on CO2 absorption and glaciation - they're invariably wrong.

Worse, really, they don't know enough to pick the right people with expertise - they pin too much on a handful of people, some of whom are too speculative - like Lindzen - and others of whom are both out of their area of expertise and no longer participating, really, in the scientific endeavor, like Ian Plimer.

A lot of this doesn't necessarily apply to Pielke, Jr. - he has a reasonable lay analyst's comprehension of the science relevant to what he writes about. His studies in math and political science gave him a reasonable working knowledge of statistics - which Lomborg has also - and statistical analysis is a key component of climate science, no doubt about it. Still, there really is no reasonable basis for including Pielke Jr. as a scientist - I would say engineering and computer science are both closer to being sciences than political science is, many times closer, and I wouldn't necessarily call someone with a PhD in engineering or computer science a scientist per se.

There are scientists like Ian Plimer (who's not actually been a working *scientist* most of his career, he's been an applied technician with a science doctorate) that get virtually everything wrong much moreso than Roger Pielke, Jr.

But the whole situation where Dr. Curry was defending McIntyre as if he were a scientiific colleague instead of a lay analyst with an extreme viewpoint entirely out of the scientific mainstream reminded me how tired I am of Pielke's obfuscation and weaseling about science. If he were his father, we'd have to say, okay, you're a scientist, you're not *that* wrong, and it's tricky to point out every time all the point-shaving you do to minimize the science and promote delay, but we'll have to do it. Given that he's not, we can turn and ask people why they take the word of someone who studied math and political science over people who actually study the specific topics he wants to work and alter.

If it's simply a free-for-all, I studied physics and math at both the graduate and undergraduate level (also taking a couple grad courses in engineering). I think I'd make an ideal crank. My default position will be no glaciers in 10 years, sea levels up 100 feet, everything in "The Day after Tomorrow" is true, and indeed, too conservative. Etc. So where's my Dr. Curry? Where're the people saying I'm being shut out of the debate? If anyone disagrees with me, who will tell them they're not being collegial?

It's completely absurd. The worst part is, simple repetition has made it seem normal and natural. It's as if having a toxic waste dump in the backyard is terrible the first few years. But if you've had one for 50 years, it's kind of venerable and lovable and normal so what's the problem?

The fact that they've done parodies of peer-reviewed journals, and even smuggled bad papers into real ones that are too catholic in their acceptance policy, is not enough to say we have to take, at least, people at the level of McIntyre, Pielke Jr., Lomborg, seriously as scientists.

Sorry to be so long-winded. I really could have just said - someone sometime will point to these posts and say, "see, they acknowledge that Pielke, Jr. is a scientist," with the implication being a scientist relevant to climate. And said, I want to distinguish the people who look it up from the people who make it up.

David Rose reminds me very much of the reporter in Season 5 of The Wire - "It's right here in my notes!"

"McI he is a mathematician, of sorts anyways"

Mathematician my ass.

WHAT ARE HIS THEOREM'S?

Mathematicians prove theorems.

Good mathematicians prove good theorems.

Great mathematicians prove great theorems.

McI = poser.

Elspi, I agree, that is why I added "of sorts" and was sure to state that he is not in the same league or of the same calibre as some other good mathematicians.

"David Rose reminds me very much of the reporter in Season 5 of The Wire - "It's right here in my notes!""

Funnily enough, The Wire was written by actual, real life journalists and crime authors. The most prolific, and driving creative force, was David Simon, who actually worked at the Baltimore Sun covering the crime beat between 1982 and 1985. I wonder where his inspiration came from?

Typo correction to the above about David Simon: he worked on the Baltiore Sun's crime beat between 1982 and 1995. 13 years, not 3.

Typo correction to the above about David Simon: he worked on the Baltiore...

Typo correction fail! :)

(just teasing, I have days like this, too!)

Doh! Should've become a journalist.

Marion Delgado says:

> In many ways, people like Tim Lambert, e.g., don't have relevant credentials for some things Pielke, Jr. or McIntyre or Lomborg get into, but the difference is, they, like most of us, fall back on the body of scientific knowledge, which, frankly, uneducated (in the relevant science) people like Pielke, Jr. and McIntyre are simply not qualified to challenge or refute, and which they cannot fall back on because they reject it for poitical or ideological reasons.

I don't think this is a good argument because the situation that you are describing matches, more or less, my position regarding economics. The "body of scientific knowledge" in economics (or at least a large part of it) is really nothing but ideological nonsense. I don't think that one needs to be a professional economist to figure this out. In fact, being a professional economist (i.e., someone who went through the selection and indoctrination process) is a hindrance at being able to assess the value of economic theory.

Sortition -the components of anthropogenic climate change science are all hard sciences. Economics is not firmly a science, for many reasons, including the lack of an agreed-upon body of knowledge. That someone doing economics in one milieu gets different results than in another is another reason. Another is that it'd be hard for an economist to prove you wrong, because there aren't universally agreed-upon standards for including or excluding hypotheses. Contrariwise, if you disagreed with the mathematics of a particular economics equation, and you didn't know calculus, your lack of expertise would be objectively relevant.

The torrent of bullshit pouring from the UK press needs a quick factcheck. David Rose,are you available? Go blow that whistle.

Monckton is being presented as a (professional) mathematician by way of weasel wording:

Lord Monckton is a mathematician by training who invented the very popular Eternity Puzzle in 2000 and eventually paid out the pound stg. 1 million prize -- but only after he had sold 500,000 copies at pound stg. 35 each. Do the maths.
His maths on climate change is even more confronting.
"The warming effect of carbon dioxide has been exaggerated to a prodigious extent," he says.

[My boldface on text in the quote.]

I wonder if David Rose ever worked at the Baltimore Sun during his 30 years as a "journalist" :p

mailonline gives a nice idea, about how David Rose will handle things, when he is proven wrong about his climate claims in the future:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1247424/I-feel-shame-regret-h…

he will abuse his errors, to accuse others.

for the moment, i have seen enough of the character of David Rose.

Daily Mail 2050, article by retired journalist David Rose:

headline: "why isn t Al Gore ashamed, that his predictions did not go far enough?"

Cut this guy some slack. He definitely doesn't fall in the Delingpole/Booker-category. He just got burned with the Iraq-scam and now thinks other hyped up international stuff, such as AGW, must be a scam as well.

With a little less aggression in the comments here (though many most certainly aren't) he might become more objective again and not let himself be used as a vehicle for spreading misinformation on AGW.

Neven @48,

I had the same thoughts.

Though, if Rose thought that after being stung on WMD, he'd be more sceptical of powerful interests this time round, he's gone and got it completely wrong again.

With AGW, those with the powerful interests aren't scientists, but those who continue to profit handsomely from the status quo.

As the Iraq war demonstrated, if all this AGW and alternative energy stuff was being driven by self-interested Govts, the carbon economy would already be well on the way to joining Saddam Hussein as past history and we'd all be driving electric cars despite our fierce opposition.

With a little less aggression in the comments here (though many most certainly aren't) he might become more objective again and not let himself be used as a vehicle for spreading misinformation on AGW.

I know I lost my objectivity after reading a blog comment.

50 - This really is my lastcomment says: "I know I lost my objectivity after reading a blog comment."

If 'This really is my last comment' is who I think it is, why don't you try this: Create a list of questions, quotes from the UEA emails, assertions by those you seem to look to most, etc, etc, and post them, one by one, and then maybe you can get a wider view and, I'm sure, a lot of helpful links and sources that would help explain and remove the veil of mystery, misdirection, grandstanding and smokescreens of pseudo-science, crankery, astroturfing and shilling, especially those coming from "economic thinktanks" and psuedo-climatologists who never spent the years and years of hard work studying the subject itself?

An eloquent example of why many here aren't too fond of the usual AGW "sceptics" is here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis…

Re: mapleleaf #30 & Nick # 43
On another forum, when I suggested to a Poptech, (who is well known AGW denier in some other scienceblogs), that he should read âThe Republican War on Scienceâ by Chris Mooney, he replied that there was no way he was going to read something by a left-wing author. This sums it all up for me that many right-wing journalists just canât, or wonât see past their political beliefs.

(BTW, I have no idea if Chris Mooney is left wing â certainly unlikely in UK / European terms).

I stopped reading the UK âMailâ many years ago after the death of Princess Diana and following which I swear they DAILY had pointless articles about her,(and things like what she had for breakfast on a certain day,for at least a whole YEAR or more after.

Thatâs their standard and I see it hasnât improved by David Roseâs contributions.

Even now the UK Daily & Sunday Telegraph claims today that Global warming is one of the most serious problems facing humanity today - yet is very ambivalent in itsâ approach.

There is a definite bias in the letter section for those against AGW , (5-0 today, 1-0 yesterday and similarly for weeks & months past). Although they have extremely sensible Geoffrey Lean they also have the ludicrous Christopher Booker â
Tim, in your admirable and relentless way, can you start a destruction of Booker please?

Message for David Rose:
I've watched people like David Perlman make the effort involved in chasing down and correcting errors in the text and headlines of their science stories. It's a challenge but it's a measure of the importance of getting what's attributed to you correct.

I'd be interested in seeing you post in some of the places using your story.
Example: http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/glaciergate-a-prima-facie-c…

which begins:
January 26, 2010 by David Middleton

From the Mail Onlineâ¦

>Glacier scientist: I knew data hadnât been verified

>By David Rose
>Last updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010

>The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leadersâ¦...

Just a heads up on the latest emails meme, this time from Christopher Booker of the Teletubbygraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7113552…

However, here's a piece by a BBC journalist who not only contradicts what Booker has to say, but who also specialises in the UK's Freedom Of Information Act:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/01/climate_data_why_ministe…

I'm sure we'll get to see who got it right, but I know which one my money's on and it ain't the former.

The Telegraph could be called comical if it wasn't for the sheer venom and spite of its regular commenters on climate change.

J Bowers:

Doh! Should've become a journalist.

ROTFL!

This blog post (and el gordo's comment in #3) reinforce the necessity that scientists refuse interviews with David Rose unless the scientists have their own audio record of the interview.

Or maybe Rose should be assigned a different beat where his own inclinations are less likely to interfere in his writing.

You have to put backslashes before the underscores, to insist you literally want an underscore, or the overly helpful blog software interprets them and makes words into italic instead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/01/climate\_data\_why\_ministers\_ref.html?s_sync=1

@ Hank Roberts; Aha! Thanks!

Marion Delgado,

> the components of anthropogenic climate change science are all hard sciences. Economics is not firmly a science, for many reasons, including the lack of an agreed-upon body of knowledge. [...]

I agree that the case could be that a certain field of inquiry and the associated predictions would require some sort of expertise to understand and dismiss while other fields would not merit such distinction. The analysis of what differentiates those categories and whether a certain specific field, say, climate science, belongs in one category or another must be part of the argument.

Simply asserting that someone is not an expert in a field and therefore cannot comment intelligently upon it is facile.

Posted by: Sortition | "Simply asserting that someone is not an expert in a field and therefore cannot comment intelligently upon it is facile."

A climate scientist knows statistical analysis of data, but a statistical analyst doesn't know climate science. A statistical analyst who criticises a climate scientist on the broader subject is on very shaky ground, but a climate scientist who criticises a statistical analyst could very well be right.

When someone with a degree in maths, which does not automatically include meaningful knowledge of statistical analysis of data at all, alludes to authoritatively criticise a climate scientist's statistical analysis of data, I bang my head on the desk. Not because they examine the data, but because of the grandstanding and circus that surrounds it, and the memes and fallacies it generates.

"If scientific reasoning were limited to the logical processes of arithmetic, we should not get very far in our understanding of the physical world. One might as well attempt to grasp the game of poker entirely by the use of the mathematics of probability. " - Vannevar Bush

I'm no climate scientist or expert, just a Joe Public (with a very sore head) who "gets the gist" of that quote.

Marion Delgado

". My default position will be no glaciers in 10 years, sea levels up 100 feet, everything in "The Day after Tomorrow" is true, and indeed, too conservative. Etc."

WHAT??????

Dave Andrews,

Can you actually read and understand simple prose? The two sentences before your quote say:

"If it's simply a free-for-all, I studied physics and math at both the graduate and undergraduate level (also taking a couple grad courses in engineering). I think I'd make an ideal crank."

On the ball again, I see.

Thanks, Hank, that helped. :-)

Dave A yes that's right - you'll never understand even the simplest things but you'll always talk talk talk as though you do.

David Rose, meet your fans, one in a series:

"Mr. Lal is a lying weasel and a wog!! How much credence do you think he gives to unsubstantiated sources which tend to indicate that global warming is abating or reversing!...."

Yes, that's what he said. No doubt this guy gives the highest possible credence to unsubstantiated sources which tend to indicate that what he believes is true. No doubt.

From: Sciencenews
Indian climatologist disputes charges over Himalayan projection Politics was not the impetus for the mistake, he maintains. By Janet Raloff
Web edition : Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

Source:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55682#comment_55876

Hank @65. Wow! And I thought Dumb Duff was bad....

Yes, Rose likes to play innocent, but I am sure that he knows a priori how people with agendas will spin his "work". Didn't Dick Cheney use a similar tactic? SteveM uses a similar approach and when wild accusations are made (based on ideas sown on his blog by him), he throws his arms up and says "it wasn't me; I didn't say it". Nice try. But McI assures us (with big puppy eyes) that "everything I have done has been done in good faith". Uh, huh.

David Rose, did your mum never emphasize to you the importance of making friends with good and honest people? Well, you have failed, now try again, and please buy an electronic recording device. Then clear your head of everything M&M lied to you about, go and speak to some real climate scientists for a backgrounder and then have another try....

Personally, I don't hold out much hope for anybody who fell for Alastair Campbell's Dodgy Dossiers 1 & 2.

They were cram-packed full of the same sort of transparent bullshit we now see the Denialidiots indulging in, and Rose has fallen for both politically-motivated scams.

Slightly OT, but Andrew Weaver is now disputing the claim that he called for anyone's resignation:

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2010/02/national-post-one-editorial-two…

@ bigcitylib: Thanks for the heads up.

I wish there was a database somewhere of this rpess nonsense. It's getting ridiculous, and is as worrying as the misrepresentations of the science itself.

As they say, "One finger pointed at someone else leaves three more pointed back at yourself."

> backslashes ... underscores

By the way, I ignore the " Please make urls into proper links like this: [Description](http://example.com)." line above the Comments box -- here's my reason.

People may now or later read this in print form or as text.
That "proper links" suggestion hides the link for anyone reading a printout or text file later -- they get no clue there was a link or where it was pointing to, to check out.

Hank,

It's easier to just bracket the url with chevrons, < >:

Dr. Kaser said he chose not to go "straightforward, to the lead authors" because "it is always a delicate matter" when criticizing other colleagues' findings.

That goes down easy with you all? And it is Rose who gets the bum's rush?

[Dr. van Ypersele] added that he had examined records of e-mail messages and found that the authors had never received the pertinent message from Dr. Kaser. Furthermore, Dr. Kaser's "most pointed criticism" of the findings on glacial melting came after the contents of the report had been completed, Dr. van Ypersele said.

Perhaps, but less believeable than Rose? Anyone see a problem with Lal's group?

>*Dr. Kaser said he chose not to go "straightforward, to the lead authors" because "it is always a delicate matter" when criticizing other colleagues' findings.*

Human systems are faliable, some more than others. The IPCC appears to be self correcting and hoepfully will be more rapidly so in the future. Thus science progresses.

Rose appears to be immune from self correction. As are denialist sources such and Monckton, Plimer, and their cheer leaders.

Agreed. And I don't think just because a mistake is made these scientists are frauds. I just don't understand the drift of Tim's post as Rose's story and Kaser/Lal's are essentially consistent AND there was a problem with how the objections were handled. Rose may or may not deserve your scorn on other points but on this one, he seems to be getting a deal that is not only raw, the comments are malignant.

Vince Whirwind,

So back in 2002 were you standing out against the considered view of all Western intelligence agencies that Saddam was still trying to develop WMD?

Or perhaps you've just got a bad case of 'galloping hindsight'!

58 Hank,

Or just use the instruction above the comment box!

Please make urls into proper links like this: [Description] (http://example.com) without the space!

70 Hank,

OK, you have a point. :)

So back in 2002 were you standing out against the considered view of all Western intelligence agencies that Saddam was still trying to develop WMD?

That view was not unanimous among people in the business.

#75, Western intelligence agencies believed no such thing.

The intelligence they were *told* to rely on when sending their report to the minister was (from memory) threefold:
- utter nonsense coming from a very dodgy Iraqi defector in the US about WMD weapons sites.
- forged "Niger yellowcake" docs provided to the Italians by the Israelis
- some crap from some crappy source about Saddam being involved with Al Qaeda, when it was a matter of public record that when they came to him with their begging-bowl he sent them away with a flea in their ear and was known to gladly execute islamic fundamentalists found operating on his turf.

The intelligence they chose to *ignore* was that coming from those such as David Kelly who actually knew about Iraq's WMD status.

Anybody with even an ounce of commonsense could see that the government's reliance on Alastair Campbell's transparently dishonest and non-factual Dossiers could only mean that there was no real evidence for WMDs in Iraq.

And yes, I most certainly stated this very simple analysis at the time.
I believe you'll find people such as Andrew Wilkie told the truth back then, too.

Nobody who lived through 2003 and was interested in the looming war could have missed this article:

"Discussions between the Prime Minister's head of strategic communications, Alastair Campbell, his foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, senior officials in MI5 and MI6 and the new head of homeland security, Sir David Omand, resulted in a decision to repeat a wheeze from last autumn: publishing a dossier of 'intelligence-based evidence'".

That paragraph should have rung alarm bells on several levels.
David Rose missed the alarm bells.

[D asks](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis…):

Vince Whirwind

So back in 2002 were you standing out against the considered view of all Western intelligence [sic!]agencies that Saddam was still trying to develop WMD?

Dunno about Vince, but in the context of Saddam having (or seriously trying to re-establish) WMD capacity I was "standing out", and loudly too. In fact, it was the first cause ever that actually enticed me to join protest marches in the streets in two cities.

It was patently obvious to anyone who kept abreast of the political milieu, of the trajectories of relative military capacity, of the consistency of pronouncements and of action by various parties involved, and not least of the opinions of real experts such as Scott Ritter, Andrew Wilkie and many others, that Saddam didn't have anything to threaten another country with, beyond fear itself.

Saddam was just a big schoolyard bully talking tough, but it suited the Coalition of the 'Willing' to lie about Iraq's capabilities. And lie they did: if they truly didn't know that there was no real WMD threat, then they were incompetent beyond words - aside from having mangled the facts of the matter beyond recognition...

And it might be harsh of me to say it, but any Joe or Jane Public who didn't have the capcity to sift through the available information and arrive at the truth was either insufficiently capable of exercising the requisite analytical skills, or ideologically entrenched to accept the WMD line, or both.

I could also present a few even less charitable alternatives, but I will desist - for now...

Bernard J has pretty much described my position in 2002. As I recall there were a rather large number of us "standing out against the considered view of all Western intelligence agencies that Saddam was still trying to develop WMD" if in fact that was the considered view of all Western intelligence.

Bernard J,

"Saddam was just a big schoolyard bully talking tough"

Go to Iraq, stand in the middle of Baghdad and repeat that statement and see what reaction you get.

You have no credibility, a typical 'Western leftie' who is wise after the fact and understands nothing outside of your scientific ivory tower.

You have no credibility, a typical 'Western leftie' who is wise after the fact and understands nothing outside of your scientific ivory tower.

Unlike Dave Andrews, who understands nothing, regardless of whether its inside or outside the scientific ivory tower ...

'D' knows that all the smart people are no smarter than 'D', and knows better than the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

"Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information".
[Conclusion 15, p82]

The link to the Senate report itself from which that quote is taken is (PDF)

'D' and Andrews won't be able to find or read it, naturally.

I was reasonably certain in 2002 that SAddam had diddly-squat, and our government was lying to us.

I became ABSOLUTELY certain after the farcical interplay where we (the US) announced that we knew where Saddam was hiding weapons, UNSCOM said, well then tell us so we can go look, the US resisted and delayed telling them and when we finally did, UNSCOM looked and there wasn't anything there.

Shortly after that, we kicked UNSCOM out of Iraq and invaded.

It was all a pile of obvious crap from the start.

[Dave Andrews](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis…).

Do you seriously believe that your strawman is worthy?!

In the context of geopolitics, Saddam was exactly what I said - a schoolyard bully. After Bush Snr had kicked seven colours of snot out of him, Saddam was still emasculated and posed no serious threat to another country - certainly not for years to come.

I never said that he was not a tyrant. He was, and he should not have been supported in power by the US for the decades that he was.

And I don't know many Middle Eastern folk, but those that I do to a person believe that given the huge loss of life, and of cultural heritage, the invasion was by far the greater of two evils, and that there were far better options for removing Saddam from power.

It has nothing to do with being wise after the fact: as I said, I was out there protesting and contacting politicians for a year before the invasion. I believe that the world should have addressed the Saddam issue, just as it should have done something years ago about Zimbabwe, Burma, and many other human rights basket cases, but I don't think that holus-bolus invasion of countries is the answer.

You might claim that I have no understanding "outside of" my ivory tower, but I was damned-well bang on the money about what would happen in Iraq following an invasion. It seems that I, and millions of others just like me, undestood more clearly than the leaders of the Coalition of the 'Willing', and than the sheep who so happily and uncritically bleated the Coalition's message about non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

In fact I understood it the day I watched the towers burning. I said to my housemate as we watched them fall that Bush would blame Iraq and find a reason to invade, and that Iraq would have had nothing to do with it.

Before the invasion I also said that Bush and Howard would invoke the cause of 'democracy', and sure enough there was much post hoc blustering about exactly that, once they realised that they would find nothing that they could pretend was a WMD.

And I'm happy to make some wise predictions before the fact about AGW... By 2100 the the mean global temperature anomaly will increase beyond 2C, and it will have major impacts on ecosystem integrity and function, and it will bring societal upheaval, conflict, and death to hundreds of millions of people.

If you disagree with me, you are more than welcome to apply your Bush/Howard Iraq-invasion logic to [these questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…
), and explain why your "wisdom" is greater than mine, or from which tower it is that you have a view that is more clear than that of science's "ivory" one.

[D](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis…) and [Dishonest Dave Andrews](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis…) are as at odds as [Plimer and Monckton](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lessons-from-Monckton-Plimer-debate.html).

Lee,
I totally agree, the UNSCOM shenanigans set the scene for me by displaying with 100% clarity that the USA were driving a dishonest agenda with regard to WMDs. From trying to discredit individual inspectors to kicking UNSCOM out and lying that it was Saddam who had done it.

Bernard,
It is amazing to see the same WMD-idiots pushing a new brand of idiocy.
Just goes to show how hard it is to teach old dogs new tricks.

It is amazing to see the same WMD-idiots pushing a new brand of idiocy.

Colin Powell was told by the White House to present papers to the UN that "proved" the existence of mobile bioweapons labs. He was told to go to the CIA to get sourcing for the assertions in the papers. The CIA failed to tell him the most important source was a known liar and fabricator.

The White House and CIA didn't bother checking sources. Once they had the assertions they wanted, they didn't care whether they were true or false.

Vince Whirlwind,

I am not a US citizen so I don't know exactly how the arguments were played out there. I had been, however, an anti nuclear weapons activist for over 20 years and had considerable understanding of the WMD issue. You may not like it but it was the considered view of most Western Intelligence agencies that Saddam was maintaining the capability to develop WMD.

His track record was also one of deceit and obstruction in relation to UN inspections and resolutions.

Like me you, of course, were never in the situation where you had to make any real decisions about matters such as these. The luxury of hindsight can make you forget the then current realities.

Bernard J,

he should not have been supported in power by the US for the decades that he was."

Are you aware that the two major suppliers of arms to Saddam were France and Russia and that they were still owed billions of dollars for those supplies, whilst simultaneously blocking new UN resolutions and seeking an end to sanctions?

Perhaps there's a connection, don't ya think?

Chris O'Neill,

Nice link. Did you notice that David Kays comments about the WMD assertions "falling apart" came after investigations over the summer of 2003 several months after the invasion?

(BTW Kays, an IAEA/WMD expert, believed that WMDs would be found before he went to Iraq)

Dave Andrews:
"...it was the considered view of most Western Intelligence agencies that Saddam was maintaining the capability to develop WMD."

...as opposed to the US/UK government's assertions that he was armed and ready, including the climactic bit of WMD-idiot-nonsense: "45 minutes from doom!"

In other words the intelligence agencies knew damn well he had none but idiots like you and Rose chose to believe the crap being fed to you by war-mongering liars in the US/UK governments.
Your line is the line the WMD-idiots had to revert to when their idiocy was plain for all to see, post-invasion: "Oh, he was *going* to have WMDs again, some day". That makes you a pretty dopey, dodgy, dishonest wanker.

And hindsight has nothing to do with it - I'm saying nothing I, and all other sceptical thinkers, weren't already saying 7 years ago, prior to the invasion taking place, based on the ample information which was in the public domain.
Contrary to Tony Blair's lies, no "secret" intelligence has ever come to light to contradict the publicly-available info we relied on at the time.

We sceptics were right. The WMD-idiots were liars and fools.

EXCELLENT!, Dave Andrews provides us with a concrete example of the kind of selective-sourcing of information that Denialist dogmatists indulge in to support a non-factual analysis they've already fabricated:

"(BTW Kays, an IAEA/WMD expert, believed that WMDs would be found before he went to Iraq)"
Kays was *not* a current expert on Iraq weapons inspections, a role he ceased performing *11 years* prior to the invasion.

The people who *were* involved in Iraq inspections in 2003 *said the opposite*.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=6383&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect

Just as with climate denialism, the active experts' data is *rejected*, while irrelevant opinions from non-experts are quoted.

Dave Andrews asks:

Are you aware that the two major suppliers of arms to Saddam were France and Russia and that they were still owed billions of dollars for those supplies, whilst simultaneously blocking new UN resolutions and seeking an end to sanctions?

Yes, I am aware of the French and US involvements.

This does nothing to distract from the US involvement however, no matter that you might wish otherwise. The thrust of the discussion is that [the US had decades of 'friendly' association with Iraq](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/) - the whole time that Saddam was beating up on his own citizenry, I might add - and that it only changed when a bigger bully-boy, in one George Shrub, decided that he wanted what Saddam had, and that he wanted it come hell or high water.

As to the sanctions, they resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Iraqis. I remember hearing, years before Bush Jnr indulged in his romping escapade, political analysts stating that the quickest way to defuse the dictatorial nature of Saddam's government would be to remove the sanctions and allow business to modernise the country, as was happening in other Middle East regimes.

I personally doubt that it would have been a panacea - Iran and China are two examples that commerce does not instanctly bring happy-happy-joy-joy, Western-style government (even as it opens the counties to Western-style consumerism) - but I am sure that it would have produced an Iraq that would have been in much better shape than the country is now, and with hundreds of thousands less deaths. And with a little subtlety I am sure that Saddam might have been defused as other dictators have been over the last several decades.

From an economic perspective France and Russia did nothing that the US would not have done, and politically their stance was much more defencible that the US's, and as I said above, it's all beside the bloody point anyway. It was the US that promoted the lie about WMD, with lapdogs Howard and Blair brown-nosing in a photo-finish.

Perhaps there's a connection, don't ya think?

What, so now it's France's and Russia's faults that the bleating Western war-mongering populace thought that Iraq was a button-push away from strewing WMD over the Middle East?!

Get off ya horse.

I had been, however, an anti nuclear weapons activist for over 20 years and had considerable understanding of the WMD issue. You may not like it but it was the considered view of most Western Intelligence agencies that Saddam was maintaining the capability to develop WMD

Vince has already kicked your arse about this, but I'll repeat the point.

If you believe that you had some 'expertise' in nuclear weaponry, and you still managed to come up with a point of view that not only contradicted the best independent experts and the opinions of most thinking folk, but that was definitively proved wrong by the the passage of time - the same passage of time that trivially proved the original sceptics (in the true sense of the word) correct - then you are repeating the same fallacy of thinking today with the matter of anthropogenic global warming.

The biggest difference is that where your blinkered 'thinking' about WMD was a part of a movement that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of millions in the first decade of the 21st century, your blinkered 'thinking' about AGW is a part of a movement that is now pretty much guaranteed to result in the deaths of tens- (and eventually probably hundreds-) of millions of people in the latter half of the 21st century and beyond.

And where in the past Rumsfeld was telling us that we didn't know what we didn't know, it's now the likes of the two Pielkes, of Watts, and of their ideological brethren (many who pop their noses up, mole-like, here) who are claimimg that we don't know the 'right' things, and who are driving whole countries from the appropriate path of action.

You must be so proud to be a part of that.

Just to be clear, when I said:

From an economic perspective France and Russia did nothing that the US would not have done, and politically their stance was much more defencible that the US's

I am referring to France's and Russia's stance on lifting sanctions, and not to their selling of arms.

Anyone who advocates (whether selfishly or otherwise) for lifting sanctions that kill thousands of innocent people is doing the right thing in my book, just as anyone (including the aforementioned "ones") who sells arms without extremely good (moral) cause is doing a repugnant thing.

Bernard J,

Well have you read all through the UN inspectors reports? Whilst Saddam was not an immediate threat to the West ( and note here in the UK the 45 minute warning went unremarked by the press and media for several months) there was indeed considerable reason to believe that he was maintaining the capability to build WMD and he had a track record of using them. This was the conclusion of most Western intelligence agencies.

Are you saying that the latter should not be relied upon by their respective governments?

Vince W,

Kay says he was kept up to date by Ekeus and that there was a great deal of uniformity in Western intelligence agencies view of Iraq's WMD capabilities.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8231/8231kay.html

Bernard J,

I see you sometimes acnowledge that sceptics can be right. LOL

Yes, sceptics who don't ignore evidence.

>*sceptics who don't ignore evidence.*

Is Dave Andrews abuseing the term 'skeptic'? Dave just because you lable people skeptical, doesn't mean they deserve the title. You need to consider their practice. Most people who call themselves skeptical on the issue of global warming are demonstrably not.

Dave Andrews,

You and Rose believed Kay.

Kay was wrong.

You and Rose are clearly *not* sceptics, but rather gullible fools.

And to judge by your uncritical acceptance of the very inexpert and unconvincing Watts/McIntyre version of current events, you and Rose both *remain* gullible fools.

Dave (I call myself a sceptic) Andrews:

Well have you read all through the UN inspectors reports?

Here is some of Blix's 7th March 2003 report:

"The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as âactiveâ, or even âproactiveâ, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute âimmediateâ cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues."

The resolution 1441 article then says:

'At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".'

So the US's only excuse was that Iraq's compliance had not been "immediate" in coming up with documentation and information even though it would have taken UNMOVIC at least several more months to complete its search and inspections, and not that Iraq wasn't allowing inspectors to inspect what they wanted to. What a pathetic excuse for starting a war that led to chaos and the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

[Dave Andrews claims](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis…).

Whilst Saddam was not an immediate threat to the West ( and note here in the UK the 45 minute warning went unremarked by the press and media for several months) there was indeed considerable reason to believe that he was maintaining the capability to build WMD and he had a track record of using them. This was the conclusion of most Western intelligence agencies.

It seems that your idea of "considerable reason to believe" does not extend beyond the level of reading page one tabloid headlines.

Every "considerable reason" was well and truly rebuffed by numerous commentators (both those professionally expert in WMD matters and those in the serious investigative media). You seem to be stumbling over this very plain fact.

The ambiguous claim that the "Western 'intelligence' agencies" appeared to support the WMD case is meaningless in itself, especially when it is well documented that there was both considerable doubt amongst many in said agencies, and that there was much documented pressure on same said agencies to produce a particular conclusion.

Your reference to the 'opinion' of "Western 'intelligence' agencies" is a meaningless aftertaste of the bitter bolus of bullshit that was forced down the public's throat at the time. Only a swivelling sideshow-alley clownhead would have swallowed that line without gagging.

Are you saying that the latter should not be relied upon by their respective governments?

When it is patently apparent to any who care to actually look, that such agencies are being overtly or coverlty coerced in one manner or another by their "respective governments", then the simple answer is "no, they should not be relied upon".

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

After all, the simple fact is that either multiple 'intelligence' agencies around the world all FUBARed so hard that they shat their gall bladders out, or that they were/are all just plain incompetent, or they were (are?) vulnerable to the pressures of the back-room vested interests of their political leaders*.

And this, in light of the fact that there were many, and repeated, truly informed opinions attempting to draw attention to the truth. Consider [Chris O'Neill's comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis…) above: there are many other similar instances where Ockham's razor would have indicated that Iraq was simply engaged in bluff and in brinkmanship - anyone who might have thought otherwise has obviously never read Sun Tzu, or even come to graps with parsimonious analysis of a situation.

Seriously, could a dysfunctional tin-pot dictatorship really have fooled so many agencies around the world? And if they had done so, why where there so many people, competent to comment, attempting to draw attention to the reality of the matter, and why did they all 'just happen' to be ignored?

The aimple answer is because the Coalition of the Willing didn't want proof, they just wanted a reason, however tenuous it might have been.

If you disagree, how about we all, on this thread, compose an open letter to Andrew Wilkie and ask him whether the balance of intelligence really supported the WMD case?

[*It is interesting that the same suite of alternatives is applied to the thousands of independent scientists and scientific organisations around the world, according to those who deny the fact of human-induced global warming. Can you see the sparks spraying from the parsimony that clangs on the pavement after having been thrown from the window?]

From the mobile weapons laboratory article:

"Powell and I were both suspicious because there were no pictures of the mobile labs," Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff said.

We all know, of course, that Powell presented these pictures to the UN, which were faked by the CIA or the White House based on purported descriptions given to them by fabricators and liars. If only Powell had remembered his suspicion:

there were no pictures of the mobile labs;

he would not be regretting that it will always be a part of his record.

The fake anthrax vial (see his biography) was a good prop at his UN presentation too.

The whole story in the article on the (fake) mobile weapons laboratory is just appalling.

Chris O'Neill,

Over his whole UN career, and as head of the IAEA, Blix was a 'fence-sitter', you could read anything you wanted into his reports. Thus the UK government was able to take the March 2003 report as evidence for their case just as easily as you take an opposite view

Dave Andrews: Fence sitter on what? His reproot was clear. Read through the formal style, and what is says is: we're being able to inspect as, when, and where we wish now, and we're not finding a god damn thing.

2 years ago I had lunch with one of Blix's inspectors - I knew him in an entirely different context, and he died of a heart attack last year. He was clear that the inspectors on the ground knew, by the time the US kicked them out of Iraq so we could attack, that Saddam didn't have a damn thing, and that they were being kicked out of Iraq so their findings wouldn't get in the way of Dubya's excuse to invade.

Dave (neo-con sychophant) Andrews:

Over his whole UN career, and as head of the IAEA, Blix was a 'fence-sitter',

Right, so you can't address the argument, you have to wheel out the ad-hom. Gee, I wonder why you can't address the argument?

you could read anything you wanted into his reports.

Which is exactly what the neo-cons did all the time or, more precisely, ignore whatever facts they wanted to ignore including the facts in Blix's report.

Thus the UK government was able to take the March 2003 report

More like February 2003, actually.

as evidence for their case just as easily as you take an opposite view

Right, so supporters of the invasion of Iraq gave a great deal of criticism to Blix (and here) yet somehow while giving him a great deal of criticism they said he was supporting their invasion argument. They were so credible. This is the point. The neo-cons didn't care about the facts. You say they said Blix's report provided justification for an invasion when it actually provided no such thing. All it provided was a pathetic excuse for causing chaos and the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

I must say that for someone who professes support for banning nuclear weapons, you take a negligent view of reckless actions that led to chaos and many, many deaths. Your viewpoint is hypocritical.

When my actual previous comment gets published, it will contain a link to this article that points out the neo-con lie that "every intelligence service knew there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq".

The neo-cons didn't care about the facts. All they wanted was a pathetic excuse to start a war.

Chris O'Neill

If you read Blix's book 'Disarming Iraq' it is full of the weasel words of a 'fence sitter'

I'd go so far to say he told whatever his audience was what he thought they wanted to hear. This was why they were able to take anything they wanted from his reports.

He does, however acknowledge that Blair believed the intelligence reports and was convinced by them especially as they were also supported by French and German intelligence.

He also admits that as late as Feb 20th 2003 he personally tended to think that Iraq still concealed WMD, and that when he made a crucial speech at the UN on
7th March he gave a mixed picture about whether Iraq had disarmed

He also agrees that Iraq's (read Saddam's) behaviour encouraged the belief that it had WMD.

The neo cons in the US may well have had an agenda but that was not the agenda in the UK or elsewhere and as Blix shows his UNMOVIC reports did nothing to clarify the situation about WMD.

Dave (the neo-con apologist) Andrews:

If you read Blix's book 'Disarming Iraq' it is full of the weasel words of a 'fence sitter'

I'd go so far to say he told whatever his audience was what he thought they wanted to hear.

Obviously you're only capable of coming up with ad-homs.

This was why they were able to take anything they wanted from his reports.

Yes the neo-cons took what they wanted allright and completely ignored what they wanted to ignore, exactly as they did in asserting "every intelligence service knew there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". In the case of Blix's report, they took the 'cannot be said to constitute âimmediateâ cooperation' statement as all they needed to justify starting a war. Yes, they took what they wanted alright, a pathetic excuse for their own appalling purposes

He does, however acknowledge that Blair believed the intelligence reports and was convinced by them especially as they were also supported by French and German intelligence.

Garbage, the French "did not have âundisputed proofâ that Iraq still held weapons of mass destruction".

He also admits that as late as Feb 20th 2003 he personally tended to think that Iraq still concealed WMD,

Garbage, his point was that Iraq hadn't supplied documentation to show what had happened to some WMDs from the past, not that it still existed as some functional weapon.

and that when he made a crucial speech at the UN on 7th March he gave a mixed picture about whether Iraq had disarmed

Garbage. His point was not about whether Iraq still had functional WMDs (which were still being searched for), it was about Iraq telling everyone what happened to the old WMDs.

He also agrees that Iraq's (read Saddam's) behaviour encouraged the belief that it had WMD.

That's not the only explanation for slow co-operation and hardly amounts to proof that their old WMDs still existed and were functional.

The neo cons in the US may well have had an agenda but that was not the agenda in the UK or elsewhere

Hahahaha. Pull the other one.

and as Blix shows his UNMOVIC reports did nothing to clarify the situation about WMD.

Absolute bull. The situation was in the process of being clarified because they were searching Iraq. The inspectors had only been there since the end of November and had found no functional WMDs apart from, I think, long range missiles that exceeded their allowed range by 22%. Inspections could have been speeded up if the US and UK had wanted but as we all know, they didn't really care if there were or were not WMDs.

Dave Andrews.

Your fixation with Hans Blix is merely a distraction from the greater picture, and that is that there were many appropriately qualified/experienced/directed involved people all telling the world that Iraq was not capable of deploying WoMD.

You are nitpicking over Blix's words just as the Bush/Howard/Blair triumvirate did at the time, with the same poor case. It was a specious argument then, it is the more so now, and I cannot believe that you would attempt to rewrite history as you seem so bent on doing.

Denialism is an entrenched character in you, isn't it?

I noticed something interesting in the article on Operation Desert Fox:

Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence in the UK, John Morrison, informed the BBC that,

'before the operation had ended, DIS came under pressure to validate a prepared statement to be delivered by then Prime Minister Tony Blair, declaring military activity an unqualified success. Large-scale damage assessment takes time, responded Morrison, therefore his department declined to sign up to a premature statement. "After Desert Fox, I actually sent a note round to all the analysts involved congratulating them on standing firm in the face of, in some cases, individual pressure to say things that they knew weren't true". Later on, after careful assessment and consideration, Defence Intelligence Staff determined that the bombing had not been all that effective.'

'Within days of speaking out on the program, Morrison was informed by former New Labour cabinet minister Ann Taylor that he was to lose his job as Chief Investigator to the Intelligence and Security Committee.'

I'd say UK Defence Intelligence staff knew what was needed to keep their jobs after that.

Bernard J,

Blix was not a diversion from the main picture, he and his team in Iraq were the only show in town at that time.

Just who are all these other more qualified people you keep banging on about?

Blix's report contained nothing that showed that Iraq had any WMDs.

Despite this absence of any evidence or even suspicion, some politicians claimed Iraq definitely had WMDs capable of being deployed against us "in 45 minutes". They based this on "intelligence" which we now know didn't exist.

Anybody who swallowed that was a gullible fool, just like David Rose and Dave Andrews.

It is now undeniable that Tony Blair and his despicable hack-journalist mate Alastair Campbell were lying, just as the sceptical amongst us could see quite clearly at the time.

If David Rose and Dave Andrews were willing, there is much they could learn by examining the errors of their past and by listening to we genuine sceptics who are quite clearly their intellectual superiors.

Vince Whirlwind,

Blix's report contained nothing that showed Iraq did not have any WMDs.

As he says himself in his book

"Personally, I tended to think that Iraq still concealed weapons of mass destruction " p194

Of course he then backtracks somewhat from having a personal view - can't get off the fence at all can we!

Vince Whirlwind,

BTW, my background was in anti nuclear weapons activism and I did not "swallow" the 45 minute claim as evidence that Saddam could attack the UK.

That claim, which went unremarked in the UK media for several months after it was published in the dossier, related to intelligence about the readiness of Iraq's army to deploy chemical weapons (which are classed as WMDs, even though they are not in the same class as nuclear weapons) on the battlefield.

You were perhaps the 'gullible' one in believing that the claim represented an immediate threat to the UK.

Kaser:
*Dr. Kaser said he chose not to go "straightforward, to the lead authors" because "it is always a delicate matter" when criticizing other colleagues' findings.*

That is the opposite of scientific integrity: accept wrong reports out or courtesy... or may be political gain?

More lies from Dave (I can't tell the truth) Andrews:

Whilst Saddam was not an immediate threat to the West ( and note here in the UK the 45 minute warning went unremarked by the press and media for several months).

Dave have you ever told the truth in your lifetime, even once? Do you even know what telling the truth means?

Here is a quote about the 45 minutes to launch:

24 September 2003

The dossier is published with a foreword from Tony Blair, which says: "The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

The prime minister tells MPs the intelligence concludes that Saddam Hussein "has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population".

London's Evening Standard carries the headline: "45 minutes from attack".

24 September 2002 to 29 May 2003

During this period between the dossier's publication and Andrew Gilligan's reports, the Commons library has told Labour MP Peter Bradley, the 45-minute claim was mentioned only once in passing in the Commons and twice in more than 38,000 written questions.

25 September 2002

The Sun newspaper, Britain's biggest selling daily, has the headline: "Brits 45 mins from doom" about the threat to troops in Cyprus.

The Star newspaper has the headline "Mad Saddam ready to attack: 45 minutes from a chemical war".

Other newspapers include the claim in their coverage of the dossier.

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon was abroad and says he never saw the newspapers and only became aware of the reports later.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3466005.stm

It seems as if the newspapers were all over this. It was the politicians who were quiet on it. Hoon says that he was not aware since he hadn't read the newspapers. Doesn't he read what his boss and cohorts wrote?

If ever there was a dysfunctional government and parliament this was it, lies, lies and more lies. Why don't you become a politician Dave, you would be right at home in their dishonest world?

Dave (the neo-con apologist) Andrews:

As he says himself in his book
"Personally, I tended to think that Iraq still concealed weapons of mass destruction "

Being the neo-con apologist that he is, Dave Andrews cuts off the rest of the quote:

"but I needed evidence",

and of course it was proven that there was no evidence because there were no WMDs. The neo-cons who claimed they had proof and were certain of WMDs were telling blatant, utter lies.

>Why don't you become a politician Dave, you would be right at home in their dishonest world?

What makes you think Ducky isn't a politician, Ian?

Chris O'Neill,

I said Blix immediately backtracked and that is what he did throughout his career. He was supposedly an expert in what he was doing but he always refused resolutely to come off the fence. That way no matter what transpired he could not be tarnished with 'being wrong'.

luminous beauty,

"politician" - you are truly joking!

Ian Forrester,

You mention two newspapers, The Sun and The Star who commented early on. No serious media bothered with it till months afterwards.

Ian FGorrester,

Perhaps I have done a slight to The Sun and The Star, since they both seem to have realised the threat was not actually directly to the UK. When the serious media picked things up a few months later this was somehow largely forgotten

Andrews - are you freaking kidding?

Blix said he thought Saddam probably had something, but he needed evidence - and that is backtracking? Blix declined to stake his reputation on a belief until he had sufficient evidence to back it up and that somehow, in your opinion, discredits him? That explains a lot about you, dude.

Blix had a team on the ground getting the evidence. We - the US and our camp followers - kicked his team out, primarily because we didn't want evidence, we wanted to invade.

So we have Blix on one side, saying, "I'll tell you what I have the evidence to be able to know," and on the other side, the US et al saying, 'evidence be damned, we know what the answer is.' And you're defending the side that expresses beliefs without evidence.

How iluminating.

BTW, your dreaming, Andrews, if you think after your latest bleat over on the open thread that I'll ever again call you by your first name.

Indeed, another very revealing post from Dave Andrews - Blix saying that he needed evidence before he would believe something is "sitting on the fence".

No, Dave, it means he is a rational, logical, and sceptical person.

Unlike you.

Blix said he hadn't found any WMDs, was making progress in getting access to everything he needed, and wanted to keep looking.

The same fuckers who are now selling global warming denialism forced the weapons inspectors out of Iraq, issued false and misleading claims about Iraq's weapons, and started a war on the strength of those lies in which shitloads of people died.

And David Andrews/David Rose *still* haven't learnt their lesson about who they should trust and who they should believe.

Dave (I can't tell the truth) Andrews shows that he only looks at the picture on the front page of newspapers to get his information. Many other papers (I only checked the Scotsman, Guardian and Torygraph) all had mention of the 45 minutes rubbish that Bliar promoted in their September 25th 2002 editions.

Dave (I can't tell the truth) Andrews you should try opening the newspaper and actually reading the words inside, you know, these funny little symbols which intelligent people use to communicate with. You might even learn something if you did.

Such ignorance from some one is completely baffling, who does your key-boarding since you seem too unintelligent to be able to use modern technology?

In fact, credibility is a key issue here.

Here's Rupert Murdoch, agitating for a war in Iraq:
""Once it [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." "

Get that? "Cheaper oil".

He went further:
""The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." "

Well, we know how *that* prediction turned out.

And what does Murdoch now pay his press lackeys to emit?
Deranged Denialist gems such as:
" "I don't believe climate change is real," [Fox News' Sean Hannity said. "I think this is global-warming hysteria and alarmism.""

Dave (the apologist for himself and the neo-cons) Andrews:

I said Blix immediately backtracked

Oh that is as entirely objective as simply quoting the whole of what Blix said. Sure. What other jokes do you know?

He was supposedly an expert in what he was doing but he always refused resolutely to come off the fence.

So he refused to lie about evidence. What a damning indictment of him. Oh the shame. Just because you're an "expert" in looking for evidence doesn't give you the right to lie about finding evidence. We know the neo-cons thought differently and Dave Andrews agrees with them.

Ian Forrester,

Your insults are boring and render the rest of what you say unworthy of comment.

Vince W,

Remember I had been well aware of Blix for many years before the 2003 Iraq war, when he was head of the IAEA. You read his reports and they always mean anything and nothing. Anti nuclear activists I know had little time for him.

Chris O'Neill,

Well you read his Feb report to the UN and the transcript of his March speech and you will see unequivocally that he was saying 'yes Saddam has or possibly does'nt and no Saddam doesn't or possibly has.

It's quite possible that there would never be a situation in which Blix had enough evidence for anything.

Dave (I can't tell the truth) Andrews said:

Your insults are boring and render the rest of what you say unworthy of comment.

Not nearly as boring as your constant lying. You and the truth are not well acquainted.

Ian Forrester,

Its obvious you would be a lot happier if Saddam were still alive today controlling Iraq, with the prospect of his sons Qusay and Uday taking over the dictatorship and continuing the sadistic regime's murderous rule over the Iraqi people for generations to come.

All to satisfy your 'liberal' conscience.

I wish that the 100,000's of thousands of innocent Iraqis had not been killed by the the illegal attack lead by B&B.

You are pathetic, you cannot put two sentences together without turning them into three or more lies.

What gives you the right, you complete scumbag, to have the audacity to try and infer what my feelings on any subject are? Like everything else you post here and else where you are so completely wrong. Do you do that on purpose? Do you look for the "Ooooh he's such a simpleton don't upset him or he may me offended if you call him on his stupidity" to protect you from people calling you for what you are, a dishonest slimeball?

Ian Forrester,

There was pathetic planning for the aftermath of the invasion, particularly by the US, and this undoubtedly led to civilian casualties.

At the same time the vast majority of those innocents killed were done so by fellow Iraqis or Al-Qaeda in Iraq, not by the coalition. You cannot excuse the actions of the former just because you disagree with those of the latter.

Dave Andrews that is a pathetic excuse.

If your country is invaded illegally then it doesn't matter which side killed you, you are still dead.

If they hadn't invaded then those 100,000's would probably still be alive.

Can't you get any facts through your skull and into your brain? Why do you continue to support anyone who is driven towards elimination of mankind as we know it? Your support for an illegal war and your support of AGW deniers shows how much of a slimeball you are.

Did you miss out on the meaning of ethical behaviour when you were at school?

Dave (the serial argument switcher when he knows he lost) Andrews:

Well you read his Feb report to the UN and the transcript of his March speech and you will see unequivocally that he was saying 'yes Saddam has or possibly does'nt and no Saddam doesn't or possibly has.

So that's a quote, is it? Where is it? You continually dodge the fact that he said "but I needed evidence". i.e. there was no evidence, there was no proof, assertions that there were, were plain, unadulterated lies. Nothing you have said contradicts that.

Switching the point again, yet more neo-con hypothetical apologia:

It's quite possible that there would never be a situation in which Blix had enough evidence for anything.

Pity our governments weren't saying these things instead of sticking to their lies. At least then there could have been an honest debate about whether that was justification for starting a chaotic war that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people or whether it was simply justification for more expedient searching for WMDs. I wonder what those hundreds of thousand of dead people would have chosen?

Dave the neo-con apologist Andrews:

At the same time the vast majority of those innocents killed were done so by fellow Iraqis or Al-Qaeda in Iraq, not by the coalition. You cannot excuse the actions of the former just because you disagree with those of the latter.

And neither can you excuse the actions of the latter because of the actions of the former.

Ian Forrester,

"If they hadn't invaded then those 100,000's would probably still be alive."

That's not the case at all. Saddam and his sons would still have been in charge and who knows how many ordinary Iraqis would have suffered because of that?

You also ignore that opinion polls showed the the Iraqis were in favour of the invasion and removal of Saddam and that the 5-6 million Iraqi Kurds have always been totally supportive of the invasion.

Chris O'Neill,

Does it never cross your mind to wonder why Blix said he personally tended to think Iraq had WMD? Could'nt have been anything to do with the situation he was dealing with by any chance?

Chris O'Neill

"And neither can you excuse the actions of the latter because of the actions of the former."

I acknowledged that the Coalition made mistakes and that undoubtedly led to civilian casualties. Will you similarly acknowledge that the majority of civilian deaths resulted from actions by Iraqis themselves and the influx of, mainly, outsiders on 'jihad' against the Americans?

Dave Andrews :

Does it never cross your mind to wonder why Blix said he personally tended to think Iraq had WMD?

You just don't get it, do you? Juries are not asked what they think without evidence. You have no defence for a lie.

Dave Andrews:

"If they hadn't invaded then those 100,000's would probably still be alive."

That's not the case at all.

Rubbish. There were hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.

Dave Andrews:

I acknowledged that the Coalition made mistakes and that undoubtedly led to civilian casualties.

And the reason the invasion was so recklessly ill-planned was because if they had waited much longer, their lie about WMDs would have become too obvious.

*I acknowledged that the Coalition made mistakes and that undoubtedly led to civilian casualties. Will you similarly acknowledge that the majority of civilian deaths resulted from actions by Iraqis themselves and the influx of, mainly, outsiders on 'jihad' against the Americans?*

Pure an utter drivel. It seems that, in consistently pursuing an expansionist agenda, the US and its proxies have been reperatedly guilty of 'making mistakes' over the past 60 years. At what point do 'exceptions to the rule' become the rule itself? Basically, its a myth that the lives of foreign civilians have ever mattered to nations pursuing political, economic and military (= geostrategic) agendas. The myth is propounded by the mainstream media who forever bleat on about the "nobility" and "benevolence" of western foreign policy agendas when in truth it has been (and is) anything but. At the same time, transgressions by offical enemies are condemned without exception.

According to international law, which is routinely ignored by the US and UK (but which must be steadfastly upheld by offically designated enemies), any occupying force is responsible for securuity in the lands that they invade and occupy. By extension, the illegal invasion of Iraq has led to many hundreds or thousands of deaths and up to 4 million internally displaced refugees (in other words, it is a humanitarian disaster). The occupiers are supposed to provide security, given that it was the invasion that precipiated the humanitarian catastrophe in the first place, irrespective of who caused it afterwards. That the war party could not predict this beforehand is no excuse. They invaded Iraq on the basis of lies and were then unable (or unwilling) to stop an internal war that has claimed the lives of so many people.

Note also how those like Dave Andrews who apparently support the war party seem to hush up when it comes to western support for torturers and mass murderers like Suharto who came to power with full UK/US/Australian support, was given the green light by the west to annex East Timor, and was supplied with arms by the UK during Blair's time as prime minister in full knowedge that these arms were being used to slaughter East Timorese. Utter hypocrisy.

Hans Blix was only reluctantly allowed by Bush and Blair into Iraq, because they knew damned well that Iraq was disarmed and defenseless; they never would have attacked it in the first place if the country could have defended itself. They knew that nothing was there, hence their decision to speed up the invasion before Blix could report that the country was clean.

The fact that there are still those out there defending the indefensible is beyond me; a war clearly fought for control of a vitally strategic land and its oil; a strategy that goes back to the planning documents of the US State Department in 1950 ("The greatest material prize in history and a source of stupendous strategic power") to Kennan's remark in 1971 ("Any country controlling the region has veto power over the global economy") to, more recently, Brezinski's overview in "The Grand Chessboard" (1997) and the Project for a New American Century (2000). Pepe Escobar's two outstanding books: 'Globalistan' (2006) and 'Obama does Globalistan' lay out the truth in quite exqusite detail. The highly infuential Council on Foreign Relations also spelled it out with their "Grand Area Strategy". The motives for invading Iraq and Afghanistan should be obvious. Thanks to an appalling mainstream media, they aren't.

Jeff Harvey,

Excuse me, but what have Suharto and East Timor to do with discussion about the war in Iraq? And how is Afghanistan vital to controlling oil in the Middle East?

You also totally neglect that there had been a humanitarian crisis in Iraq for 30 years of Saddam's regime before the war. That the Kurds in the North and the Marsh Arabs in the South, for example, had been systematically persecuted and abused for decades.

Why is it do you think that the Iraqi army, even the Republican Guard, more or less melted away in the face of the invasion? Because they had no stomach or loyalty to fight for a murderous tyrant and why should they?

Why did Saddam instigate a war against Iran that cost at least 100,000 Iraqi lives and many more Iranian lives and effectively bankrupted his country?

Why did Saddam then invade Kuwait inflicting even more suffering in the Region and eventually on his own people?

So don't pretend that there wasn't an ongoing and long-term humanitarian crisis in Iraq before 2003.

Excuse me, but why have you all allowed Dave Andrews to derail this comments thread onto the subject of the Iraq War, when this is a climate science blog? Might I add that you've moved into an area where he is on rather more solid ground and you are on much less solid ground than when you were all discussing climate science?
Sorry to come in from lurking to just say this, but really, folks.

Hey Dave, interesting that you bring up Kuwait - can you tell me off the top of your head whether the Kuwaiti people have yet been permitted to vote in free and fair elections since the USA "liberated" them almost 20 years ago?

Also very interested in your "...opinion polls showed the the Iraqis were in favour of the invasion and removal of Saddam..." statement.

Would those have been opinion polls commissioned by the Iraqi government?
Or perhaps it was the same people who gave you the fictional WMDs, fictional "Niger Yellowcake", fictional "sick babies ripped from incubators" or fictional "Saddam-Al Qaeda link"?

Have you learned nothing, still?

Oh, and Antiquated Tory, I'm not sure in which parallel universe it is that one can gullibly and foolishly swallow the WMD lies and still be "on solid ground", but I'm pretty sure we here are not in it.

Vince Whirlwind,

Are you trying to deny Saddam invaded Kuwait?

See:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=2808

bunch oof frickin' idiots.......climate change BS as usual w/ all you nuts. CIAO!

Rosegate scandal grows

tlambert — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:29:57 +0000

Rosegate scandal grows

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.

Tags

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

Rosegate, eh? Perhaps I should be flattered.

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…):

...I happen to be telling the truth about my interview with Dr Lal.

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?

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.

This is not one of "global warming orthodoxy's most cherished beliefs". You're lying.

Latif told me that this is most unlikely to be realised.

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:

This has now degenerated into abuse.

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.

Obviously a cherry-pick and not the 'orthodox' 'belief'.

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:

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

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:

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, from someone who [says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php#comm…):

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.

"[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:

The good ship 'Global Change' run by that less than salubrious shipping line, AGW Inc., is sinking fast.

Equal second warmest year, immediate past 14 years warmest in the record just as it's been the whole time since 1980. Yup, the Duffer knows when global warming has come to an end.

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.

Rosegate

tlambert — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:53:09 +0000

Rosegate

Imagine, if you will, that the emails stolen from CRU had included fawning comments from an MSM journalist to a climate scientist like this:

As a veteran member of the MSM (Vanity Fair and the UK's Mail on Sunday) may I state for the record: Sir, I salute you. Bravo!

or this:

without Steve's brilliant work and this magnificent website, it could not have been written.

What do you think the denialists would have said? Since a perfectly innocuous query from Seth Borenstein in the stolen emails lead to Anthony Watts calling for "AP to remove Seth Borenstein as 'science reporter'", you can bet that there would have been a campaign against the journalist in question.

But those comments were written by journalist David Rose and addressed to Steve McIntyre, so the denialists have ignored Rose's obvious and extreme bias and touted his work. As you would expect from his comments, Rose uncritically accepted McIntyre's quote mined misrepresentations about the stolen emails. Rose has form here. In 2002 he wrote a series of stories about how Iraq was behind Al Qaeda, but in 2004 was forced to admit that he had been "bamboozled" by the lies of Iraqi defectors. You'd think he would have learned.

Since his article channeling Steve McIntyre, Rose has become a full-on anti-climate science warrior.

He wrote a story that thoroughly misrepresented Mojib Latif, claiming:

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 world's most eminent climate scientists [referring to Latif].

Latif, of course, had said no such thing, and responded

"They are not related at all," he said. "What we are experiencing now is a weather phenomenon, while we talked about the mean temperature over the next 10 years. You can't compare the two."

Now he has a story on the error in the IPCC WG2 report about Himalayan glaciers, and has verballed another scientist. Rose wrote:

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report's chapter on Asia, said: "It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."

Joe Romm checked with Lal:

He said these were "the most vilest allegations" and denied that he ever made such assertions. He said "I didn't put it [the 2035 claim] in to impress policymakers... We reported the facts about science as we knew them and as was available in the literature."

That's not all that Rose got wrong:

For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.

In their response, the IPCC authors said, bizarrely, that they were 'unable to get hold of the suggested references', but would 'consider' this in their final version. They failed to do so.

Look at what she actually wrote:

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) You need to quote Barnett et al.'s 2005 Nature paper here - this seems very similar to what they said. (Hayley Fowler, Newcastle University)

Barnett's Nature paper doesn't say anything about Karakoram glaciers increasing. What it does say is this:

There is little doubt that the glaciers of the HKH [Himalaya-Hindu Kush] region are melting and that the melting is accompanied by a long-term increase of near-surface air temperature (ref. 44 and Figs 2.9 and 2.10 in ref. 1), the same level of warming we saw impacting the western USA. After 25 years of study, the China Glacier Inventory was recently released[45]. It showed substantial melting of virtually all glaciers, with one of the most marked retreats in the last 13 years (750 m) of the glacier that acts as one of the major sources of the Yangtze River, the largest river in China. In total, it is estimated that the entire HKH ice mass has decreased in the last two decades. Furthermore, the rate of melting seems to be accelerating[46]. ...

It appears that some areas of the most populated region on Earth are likely to 'run out of water' during the dry season if the current warming and glacial melting trends continue for several more decades. This may be enough time for long-term planning to see just how the region can cope with this problem. Unfortunately, the situation here is that when the glaciers melt and their fossil water is used or lost, their contribution to the water supply of the region will cease.

Yes, the Nature paper supports what the IPCC report says.

The paper on Karakoram is Hewitt (2005), which says:

What the Karakoram expansions do not do is refute the case for climate change, nor even atmospheric warming. The former seems the only explanation of the glacier changes observed. Warming and greater transport of moisture to higher altitudes may explain other aspects of the anomaly. The central Karakoram does emerge as the largest of those very few areas where glaciers are growing today, most probably due to the great elevations, relief, and distinctive climatic regimes involved.

This was published, not in Nature, but in Mountain Research and Development (impact factor 0.347). The IPCC authors should still have been able to find it, however.

Fowler's comments on the flap are worth reading:

Dr Fowler, a hydroclimatologist, pointed out that while winters in the western Himalayas were warmer, summers had been cooler in recent years, meaning that some glaciers in the west have been growing, not receding like others around the world.

Dr Fowler said the scale of the task of putting the report together meant that no one editor could be an expert on every aspect of each chapter. ''Given the size of literature that needs to be read to put the IPCC report together though, I am sure that occasional errors may occur,'' she told the Herald. ''The good thing is that it has been spotted and will now be put right. It does not mean that all the other conclusions of the IPCC report are wrong.''

If David Rose was writing the story I imagine her comments would have been reported like this:

Dr Fowler, a hydroclimatologist, pointed out that while winters in the western Himalayas were warmer, summers had been cooler in recent years, meaning that some glaciers in the west have been growing, not receding like others around the world.

Dr Fowler told the Daily Mail that ''all the other conclusions of the IPCC report are wrong.''

Update: The Rosegate scandal grows.

tlambert Tue, 01/26/2010 - 22:53

Tags

Typo alert: Do they force you to use markdown in posts as well now? Link to wattsupwiththat appears to be in literal html.

Come on, to be a proper neo-gate you need to be reporting this a **lot** more hysterically.

I get the impression that many are unaware that the UK has a Press Complaints Commission. Most noteable is Clause 1 of the Editors' Code:
http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

One case relevant to climate change was a complaint against an article by Christopher Booker on sea level rise, which produced at least a partial result even though the complainant was not named in Booker's piece:
Adjudication - Mr Bob Ward v The Sunday Telegraph
http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NjE4OQ==

I somehow imagine the list of articles here and elsewhere could be challenged a bit more easily, given the documented evidence against claims made in British newspapers such as the Sunday Times, Mail on Sunday, and Sunday Telegraph, who can display distinctly partisan views on climate change.

The UK Press Complaints Commission is pretty toothless, but even so I hope Latif, Lal and Fowler are considering lodging a complaint. You donât have to be named in an article to make a complaint, but a named complainant will have a stronger case.

The PCC may be toothless in terms of compensation, but at least they're an impartial adjudicator and can force a newspaper to print a retraction, rebuttal, or alternative view which gets seen by the readership. As the case I posted to clearly shows, the complainant need not be named.

The UK has some of the most draconian civil libel laws in the world, and it takes press misrepresentation pretty seriously hence the legislation and PCC. The biggest problem with these articles is that there are rarely, if ever, any corrections printed probably because they rarely get challenged using official and impartial channels. So, Dear Reader simply goes away with the impression that what they say is true and factual.

There's little point in only complaining on blogs like this. I also wouldn't be quite so self-defeating on the issue. Really, what's to be lost except a bit of typing time?

Personally, I subscribe to the opinion that any PCC-enforced retractions should be given the exact same amount of prominence that the offending stories were originally. Same page, font size, the works. The Daily Fail and all the other British tabloids would be soooo screwed.

brilliant and magnificent. Could he be any more fawning?

What an obvious case of confirmation bias. A journalist with no scientific or analytical aptitude comes across a webpage that tells him what he wants to hear, and he accepts it uncritically.

I think some people here are confusing bad reporting with libel. The UK has pretty tough libel laws, but a reporter who claims to cite someone else can never be tried for libel. At best he may be requested to correct. And that doesn't always end up very good. For example, Booker once gladly did so...and introduced yet another attack in the progress:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6475667…

I was only pointing out that mispresenation is taken seriously, as seen with the draconian libel laws here in the UK.

Bad or blatantly biased reporting is the issue as rightly pointed out. The more complaints then theoretically the more headaches for editors and press lawyers. At least it might prompt them to check sources and facts more rigorously.

J Bowers: I don't think they care. Certain authors are out there to be provocative and to promote their own views; if they bring readers then the editors don't care. Particularly if it's all in line with the editorial stance of the paper.

Do they force you to use markdown in posts as well now?

Who "they"? Markdown doesn't work on any other ScienceBlog. (Fortunately.)

(BTW, I don't have a blog. I just need to pretend so I can comment on Pharyngula.)

very good article Tim.

such errors are horrible. but the spreading of lies is following a system. just take a look at the D'Aleo/Watts paper:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/new-paper-on-surface-temperature-…

the 15 points "SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS" is a list of lies, false statements and misrepresentations.

sod: sounds like a collection of already and easily debunked arguments.

Yes, carrot eater, sod; easily debunked by those in the know. But somebody has to do it. And there's so much of this around now, that some of it will inevitably stick with the public.

But look at it from the bright side (if you're a policy guy; I am not): the only reason for all this noise is the "threat" of real climate legislation, no matter how modest and loophole riddled, in the USA. Obama is doing something right ;-)

BTW another worrisome thing: the UK parliamentary investigation:

Look especially at this point:

â How independent are the other two international data sets?

Somebody's pulling the same strings.

Martin: Much of the latest clownery about station numbers has been nicely addressed by this guy:

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/01/kusi-noaa-nasa/

He doesn't write often, but he does a pretty good job when he does.

@J Bowers:
Misrepresentation taken seriously?
Retractions published somewhere on page 25, in small print, are worth nothing.

Note that many others in other fields have bad experiences with the British newspapers:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/20100…
(I'm going to plug this one elsewhere, too)

Maybe we need a law which says that newspapers and other such publications, on and offline, must put their corrections forwwards with as much publicity as the original article.
Which would really screw over the tabloids, hehehehe.

Has anyone checked Tom Fuller's ululation dissemination channel to see if he is inserting RoseGate!!!! next to every noun in his text?

Surely Tom's intrepid coverage is playing this up, like the SwiftHack scandal he screeched about!!!!!!!!!!!

I crack me up.

Best,

Bravo, Tim! A great post.

One lesson is that scientists should refuse interviews with David Rose unless they're keeping their own audio recording of the interview.

carrot eater: yes, good write-up.

BTW this E.M. Smith character ("chiefio") that works with d'Aleo is incredible... a Dunning-Kruger specimen that beats even Watts.
Over at Rabett's we looked at his surface station code:

http://www.webcitation.org/5moIbpHAF

1) He does integer calculus, but wrongly, resulting in 0.1 C net precision

2) He uses temperatures, never having heard of temperature anomalies

3) He averages stations, never having heard of areal averaging or regridding.

Says Watts:

First I want to say that without E.M. Smith, aka âChiefioâ and his astounding work with GISS process analysis, this paper [d'Aleo and Watts, MV] would be far less interesting and insightful. We owe him a huge debt of gratitude.

Those two deserve each other...

Well, well, he publishes his code, and my oh my, all this complaining of "poorly written spaghetti FORTRAN" by the denialsphere and oh, my, his code really does suck, doesn't it?

well, well. I think compsci people get overly snarky when it comes to code; people in physical science write code as needed, not to win beauty pageants. If it works, it works. But does he really need line numbers and gotos for whatever he's doing there?

But the bigger issue is one of a constant and continuous incompetence with respect to the concept of anomalies.

@Brian Schmidt:
There's actually a good chance no one actually talked to David Rose. Check also the link in #16, with an example of another scientist being "quoted" without ever having talk to the journalist (somewhere 2/3rd down). Not David Rose, not the Daily Mail, but the pattern is quite persuasive in the British press.

well, well. I think compsci people get overly snarky when it comes to code; people in physical science write code as needed, not to win beauty pageants. If it works, it works.

Note that I've defended both the use of FORTRAN and the quality of code in GISS Model E in may places.

My comment was speaking to the (as always) hypocritical criticisms launched by (mostly uniformed) denialists over the quality of NASA GISS Model E and GISTEMP. Though GISTEMP is, by all accounts, a mess (but largely due to the structuring of the program in several passes due, apparently, to limitations of storage on the older computers for which it was originally developed - this is probably where the structural clean-up that will be done by the CCC people will be most useful. And it's a structural clean-up made possible by increased capacity of cheaply available computers, not any CS-snarky stuff (they'll do it in Python, not FORTRAN, but I think the restructuring/refactoring, not the change of language, will make the biggest contribution to readability and understandability).

But does he really need line numbers and gotos for whatever he's doing there?

It's a thing of beauty, ain't it? :)

But the bigger issue is one of a constant and continuous incompetence with respect to the concept of anomalies.

Everyone here should at least quickly browse the second lucia thread linked in a previous post. It's amazing. Lucia attempts to pound the fact into EM Smith that anomalies, not temperatures, are the goal and he apparently does not get it.

AMAZING.

These are the people "overturning" the work of thousands of professional scientists ...

Oh, as to whether or not he needs those IFs, GOTOs, and line numbers, modern FORTRAN not only has reasonable IF-THEN-ELSE statments, but a CASE statement as well.

Eli doesn't think many people remember the limitations of programming on a 32K machine that you booted from a paper tape reader. Real time data acquisition was the real horror. (Anyone remember FORTH)

Isn't this guy being sold as an expert computer programmer? If he's sitting there writing gotos and line numbers, we can have our doubts on that. We can then clearly see that he doesn't understand the first thing about what he's writing his code about. So what exactly is he good at?

dhogaza: can you give the link again? not sure where to look, based on that description.

Eli doesn't think many people remember the limitations of programming on a 32K machine that you booted from a paper tape reader. Real time data acquisition was the real horror. (Anyone remember FORTH)

Yeah, I remember FORTH, and booting the computer I learned machine coding on - a PDP 8/S with 4K 12-bit words - by keying in a bootstrap loader using the binary switches and the "memory deposit" key. That loader was then used to load in the the binary loader from paper tape that was *then* used to bootstrap the computer :)

Actually the first bit of systems software I wrote was an improved binary loader that used all eight bits of the paper tape rather than just six, shortening the tape, and splitting the binary into 128-word blocks with individual checksums, so when the paper tape reader on the teletype failed (as it invariably did every few tapes), you only had to back up to the last block and reload from there, rather than the entire tape (programs frequently took 15+ minutes to load).

Those were the days. I don't miss them a bit!

Isn't this guy being sold as an expert computer programmer? If he's sitting there writing gotos and line numbers, we can have our doubts on that. We can then clearly see that he doesn't understand the first thing about what he's writing his code about. So what exactly is he good at?

Apparently he's really good at not understanding why anomalies, not absolute temps, are what's important when comparing stations at different elevations or latitude or ...

I can't think of any other so-called "expert computer programmer" who can't get that straight.
Isn't this guy being sold as an expert computer programmer? If he's sitting there writing gotos and line numbers, we can have our doubts on that. We can then clearly see that he doesn't understand the first thing about what he's writing his code about. So what exactly is he good at?

dhogaza: can you give the link again? not sure where to look, based on that description.

Oh, drat, the lucia link is from another thread, I'll go find it.

Here it is ... lucia really takes him apart on a variety of things.

dhogaza and Eli - not only remember, but my Sun system monitors are Forth - and I am probably the only one in my company that (marginally, I admit) understands them.

And dhogaza, I will go you one better by just saying that mine was a homebuilt (well - Shipboard-built as I was in the Navy at the time) IMSAI Z-80 system, but from there, yeah - pretty much the same ;-) Only mine read 5-level Baudot initially ..... ;-)

I have had so many run-ins with "goto" people that I just gave up. One wrote a small program (under Pick - does that pull rank or anything - in maybe some odd inverse manner??) that had a SLIGHT mis-step and didn't "goto" quite the right place - the entire program sat there for 6 hours doing the same thing over and over. I larned him a thing or two about while loops that day. Another person wrote a goto loop that I glanced at and said "Yeah - that is just a basic 'for' loop..." and was told that it was ENTIRELY different. Whatever.

To parapharase: Those that cannot program upset those of us that can.

nd dhogaza, I will go you one better by just saying that mine was a homebuilt (well - Shipboard-built as I was in the Navy at the time) IMSAI Z-80 system, but from there, yeah - pretty much the same

Oh, the Z-80 was microprocessor, the PDP-8 was introduced in 1965 ... the 8/S somewhat later (S for serial, i.e. the arithmetic unit processed one bit at a time, 13 times (12 bit + overflow bit) for each add, rather than in parallel like the PDP-8 or other real computers).

Pick. Ha! Never had the pleasure though I know people who did.

To parapharase: Those that cannot program upset those of us that can.

Which reminds me that there are only 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary, and those that don't ...

I was gonna say the "10 kinds" thing ... but thought better =;-)

I was thinking more Commercial vs HomeBuilt - but yeah - I never had the pleasure of messing around with an 8. I think I worked with a custom board for an 11 once, but never worked with the system itself. I got into this late.

Pick was fun! (Trivia: What was it's name BEFORE it took the name of it's creator?) Slow as heck - but I loved it's data structure - and it was the very first OS to run on IBM's new RISC-6000 system back when it was born. I started working with Pick after messing about with a Revelation database system after the person that designed it became unavailable.

I just collect weird and obsolete systems all over, don't I?

Since the topic is bent and twisted journalism, has anyone heard about James Delingpoleâs latest antics?

Delingpole somehow got hold an email sent to a parliamentary candidate by a member of the public enquiring about the candidates views on climate change. Delingpole then published the email on his blog, including the sender's name and postal address. Delingpoleâs goons then set about intimidating the sender of the email by 'phone and email. The blog posting has now been taken down, but Monbiot has more information:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jan/27/james-d…

What an animal.

I actually knew Dave Rose a little, many years ago, through a shared interest in caving/potholing. So weird to see the way he's jumped the shark - he used to be a proper journalist once, writing investigative law and order stuff for the Grauniad.

It seem where he wanders into areas he knows little about he is easily suckered by charismatic people (eg Iraq/Al Quaeda and here by McIntyre) and has gotten too lazy to cross check. Probably if you write for the Daily Mail it doesn't really matter - its all about selling newspapers.

As a scientist though I feel really unsettled by the denialist backlash. It is so NOT grounded in science and yet they seem to have everyone's ears. The lunatics are taking over the asylum.

Tim,

Carry on tilting at windmills. The real story that will come out is the money and resources that Pachauri and others have secured for their institutes etc on the back of the IPCC. This is already beginning to surface in India and will soon become more widespread. Once it does the IPCC is doomed.

Once it does the IPCC is doomed.

We know it's all about politics with Dave Andrews, but ...

Watcha goin' to do when it all melts on you?

Dave Andrews - is that wishful thinking on your part or what?

Dave Andrews,
could you please provide a date for your "the IPCC is doomed" prediction?

Rosegate lol. Come on readers, it's your responsibility to trawl the internet now dropping references to "rosegate". Every forum, every blog, let them know.

Also grin and bear as I critique Joseph D'Aleo and the SurfaceSmear project:

http://climatewtf.blogspot.com/2010/01/joseph-daleo-and-his-technically…

@35

Astounding stuff from James Dellingpole and the sheep-like trolls that are attracted to denialism.

Thats what confuses me - is Delingpole seriously brain dead, or just evil? What sort of moron puts anyones name and address or other contact details up online without their permission, especially when critiscising their personal correspondence with their MP?

So David Andrews, you don't give a shit that many journalists can't do their f%%cking job properly. For example, Rose using fallacious 'arguments', misinformation and distortion to refute what he sees as 'junk science'? Does the hypocrisy not register with you? Sadly no.

Honestly, people like you blow my mind. No wonder Fox is doing so well David, you and your ilk are not only gobbling up conspiracy theories and BS put forward by ideologues b/c and but you then then participate in the dissemination of said BS. Denialists are showing themselves to be amongst the most mean spirited, draconian, myopic cults walking the planet. Just see the example provided by lord-sidcup @37, or the death threats against Santer and Jones and WIlson and others. You and your ilk are apparently just out for blood, and don't give a shit about the science. It is easy to be cavalier when one thinks of the IPCC scientists as mere targets, but they are actually people with families.

If it were Rose twisting and distorting your beloved McI's words then I'm sure you'd have something to say. Enjoy this ride while you can, b/c a few decades from now you'll regret being so willfully ignorant.

Thats what confuses me - is Delingpole seriously brain dead, or just evil?

They are not mutually exclusive options.

@13 Sod: in the comments from your link, in response to a keen-eyed reader who spotted an extra 'the':

"REPLY: We plan to keep this as a living document, with version numbers as we update, so yes such things are welcome. We are depending on all of you for our âpeer reviewâ. Check your inbox for an email, send there. â A"

Ah, so that's what peer-reviewed means to the blog scientists at WTFIUWT.

Oops: make that @12

Good post, Tim. I like how it summarizes the glacier flap that has antiscience folks trumpeting the final nail (yet again) in the coffin of AGW.
--Dan (not Dave) Andrews!

[Lord Sidcup](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate.php#comment-2231733).

Delingpole's behaviour is reprehesible in the extreme.

Is there no media regulation in Britain that proscribes the publication of names where it is not in the public interest, and especially when such publication involves the breaching of the rightly-expected privacy of the correspondent?

And what of Edwin Northover?! Is it tolerable behaviour in Britain for a political candidate to give private correspondence, pertaining to a routine matter of constituency, to the press? And with the identifying details of the correspondent included? Surely this breaches both privacy and electoral laws?

I'm rather sure that in Australia both would be facing charges: perhaps a local legal eagle, (or even a buzzard - cohenite, you've been quiet of late...), could clarify?

Northover and Delingpole have both exihibited despicable and endangering behaviour. Their punishment at the least should be to have their addresses, email details, and 'phone numbers publicised as well, in the good Old Testament fashion so beloved of the Tories...

It seems almost certain (to me) it was in contravention of the provisions of Data Protection Act (DPA). The Guidance on dealing with requests for MPs' correspondence relating to constituents intimates as much, though this document relates more to FoI requests from MPs than constituents' letters to MPs than the DPA angle itself. That said many of the points, and particularly points 2, 6-8 and 11-13 bear reading.

And then there is this verbose exchange between a Conservative MP and the Deputy Leader of the House and the ensuing debate on the question of confidentiality of constituents' communications with their MPs.

OH FFS! No wonder the other side of the fence is winning the PR battle. Think some "sceptics"/contrarians even hesitate about making complaints? Stop being a bunch of whusses.

Folks, it is all good and well complaining here, but we have to follow through and actually complain. It does not take that much time. Yes, the press councils may not have teeth, but who gives a shit (sorry, I'm not in a good mood)? And besides, that is not the bloody point, the point is to send a message that people are taking note and for there to be some level of accountability. I challenge all of you living in the UK to file an official complaint against Delingpole, and/or Rose and/or Northover. One could also complain directly to one or more of the papers' largest advertisers/sponsors.

Really, I'm getting pretty sick of we scientists playing "Mr. nice guy". There are formal mechanisms out there to process complaints. Unless Delingpole and Rose become liabilities, they will have a job and continue to spout crap and even, in the case of Delingpole, endanger people's lives.

Let the scientists keep doing the science. They're too honourable, though. The IPCC needs to bare its teeth a bit more.

Sick of "bloggers" pretending to know more than the pros who spend every waking moment (according to the so-called Climategate emails) doing the real science in their heads. Dreaming it, thinking it, eating it. Worrying about their grandchildren (if one actually bothers to read the emails).

DELINGPOLEGATE

I propose we all use that term until the Telegraph releases all internal memos related to Delingpole's deleted blog post.

# 49

I donât know that Edwin Northover is directly involved in forwarding the email to Delingpole. Delingpole actually credits and names someone else as doing this â someone subsequently identified as a Conservative Party activist and one time candidate in local council elections. I think I was originally wrong about Delingpole revealing the email address, but he does reveal a name and postal address. It is claimed that one of Delingpoleâs goons subsequently revealed the telephone number in a comment posted to Delingpoleâs blog.

I havenât managed to track down any comments to the blog posting, but the text of Delingpoleâs blog (with personal details removed) is:

âConservative candidates stalked by eco bullies

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: January 24th, 2010

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023508/conservativ…

The Warmists are looking increasingly foolish and wrong. But they arenât going to go down without a fight. Consider, Exhibit A, this nauseating email currently being sent out to Conservative candidates. It seems that in the last week a couple of hundred Tory candidates have received variations on the theme below. Note that these emails do not come from a named organisation but from an individual voter in the prospective parliamentary candidateâs constituency. (Hat tip: X. XXXXXX)

âFrom: XXXX XXXXXXXX
Date: 2010/1/22
Subject: Conservation Query
To: lwconservatives@googlemail.com

Dear Edwin Northover

I was concerned to note the results of a survey of 140 Conservative candidates for parliament that suggested that climate change came right at the bottom of their priorities for government action.

I hope you can reassure me that you recognise the importance and success of climate change action by the UK government at home and internationally.

Can you clarify that:

You accept that climate change is caused by human activity?

Do you support the target to achieve 15% renewable energy by 2020?

Do you support the EU imposing tougher regulation to combat climate change?

Kind Regards

XXXXX XXXXX
XXXX XXXX XXX London

One would like to think that any true Conservativeâs answer to all these questions would be âNo.â Or better still, a two-word answer beginning with âF-â and ending with âOff.â Unfortunately, that would be to confuse Dave Cameronâs current crop of brainwashed, career-safe, Blair-lite, eco-fluffy, Kool-Aid drinkers with the genuine article.

Meanwhile, if anyone can give me the low-down on which disgusting eco-fascist organisation is sponsoring these âspontaneousâ emails, I should be most interested to hear.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023508/conservativ… â

I would have thought the local Conservative Association is in breach of the UK Data Protection laws. I did send an enquiry last night to the Conservative Party asking if, following this incident, they can guarantee personal details held by party associations are securely kept. No reply so far.

I find this data protection breach with the more or less implicit call to harassment by Delingpole disturbing. It does have very distinct parallels to developments in a certain Central European country in the mid-30's. Or to developments in a certain Central African country in the mid-90's. Noteworthy is especially the spiteful and inflammatory vocabulary. And I invoke these parallels very sparingly.

Delingpole is now trying to limit the damage:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100024152/monbiot-an-…

It still does not explain why a Conservative Association office is sharing private information about a constituent with Delingpole.

Lord Sidcup - last night the whole thread of Delingpoles idiocy was in google cache. I saved it if you can't find it there. It was cached after Delingpole removed the contact details from the original post, but not from the comments, and demonstrates clearly that he put up enough info to make the person traceable. For one allegedly so intelligent he has the internet sense of a 9 year old.

I find this data protection breach with the more or less implicit call to harassment by Delingpole disturbing. It does have very distinct parallels to developments in a certain Central European country in the mid-30's. Or to developments in a certain Central African country in the mid-90's.

Heh. In addition to Godwin's Law, it appears an equivalent "law" referencing the Central-African instance may be needed.

Mal Adapted, I was waiting for that. Are you actually aware of the full and diverse definitions and exceptions to Godwin's Law? You might check out that Wiki article thouroughly. I'll be very happy to hear your reasoning why my comparison is unsuitable. Mind you, I might have chosen any or all right- or left-wing extremist organisations for comparison - the shrill, hyperbolic tone is always the same. Read the cached Delingpole article provided above, and then come back. While mulling over your response you might wish to consider the use of labels such as 'eco-fascist' which Delingpole introduced in his blog post. You might also wish to consider exactly the circumstances in, for instance, Rwanda in 1993. Google "Radio Milles Collines".

JasonW,

Aw, calm down. I have read that wiki article thoroughly, but "Godwin's Law" is still just a handy allusion arising from a humorous observation about Internet discourse. It was never intended to be either a sword or a shield.

My reaction to the events in Rwanda is pretty much the same as my reaction to the Nazi Holocaust. I don't have anywhere near the same reaction to some snark on the Internet about a denier journalist.

Ah, Mal Adapted, but that Law, like the ad hominem argument, is often misused and abused to kill discussion. *That* I take issue with. Sorry if I misconstrued your intention thusly. And let's differentiate here: My intent is not comparing Delingpole to the Holocaust, that would be ludicrous! But the role he's playing in riling up his readers and denouncing and defaming citizens exercising their democratic rights is very similar to the role the *media* has played before. Maybe a more adequate comparison is to the Axel Springer publishing house in the late 60ies here in Germany. Their constant stream of inflammatory andpolemic anti-left articles contributed to an atmosphere of tension that ultimately led to the death of a protester. In this, I see no difference to Delingpole at all, except in scale.

But ultimately this thread is about Rose and while he's your typical misinforming denier journo, he's no better and worse than others of the kind. Indeed, his contribution at realist blogs such as Delotid and Climate Progress is to be commended - he might well, though he wouldn't admit it, actually learn one or two things. I'm not holding my breath waiting for any salutes here though.

> 15 Martin: Much of the latest clownery about station numbers has been nicely addressed by this guy
>
> http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/01/kusi-noaa-nasa/
>
> He doesn't write often, but he does a pretty good job when he does.

Forgive me for being a dense simpleton. In an earlier life, I did enough science to know

* Publication in peer reviewed journals often requires appropriate statistical analysis.

* Trusting one's intuition as to how data might be is unreliable.

* Inappropriate statistical analysis can mislead and obscure.

---

From [Hausfather's article](http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/01/kusi-noaa-nasa/) in "The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media" blog as provided in the link by Martin above

> **There actually is a fairly easy way to test if the absence of more recent data from a number of stations has a significant effect on temperature records.** If stations were purposefully dropped in favor of those with greater warming trends, one would expect to see **cooler temperatures in the stations that do not have temperature records available** in the last few decades than in those stations with a continuous record up to the present.

> ... Of the 1,419 temperature stations containing data for this period, available at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, 1,017 continue up to at least the year 2000, and 402 stop. ...

Specifically,Hausfather claims ...

> *There is no significant difference between the temperature from discontinuous and continuous stations*, suggesting that there was no purposeful or selective âdroppingâ of stations to bias the data. ...

From the [Figure that is provided](http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/0110_Figure-23.jpg) , I don't see it. In time interval from 1890 through to 1950 the blue line of 'dropped stations' is predominantly below the red line which indicate *retained stations*

The period from 1890 - 1950 is 60% of the the time interval.
The elimination of 402 'cooler' locations to provide a reduced pool of 1,017 sample locations represents 39% of the final sample population.

Repeating ...

> **If stations were purposefully dropped in favor of those with greater warming trends, one would expect to see cooler temperatures in the stations that do not have temperature records available**

The figure that Hausfather provides suggests *exactly that.*

Hausfather goes on to claim

> If anything, discontinuous stations have a slightly higher trend over the century than continuous stations.

Isn't such a trend indicative of the evolving microclimate in a growing center of urban population?

Wouldn't the growth in a large, established region of population have less of an immediate impact on their microclimate than the impact caused by growth to the microclimate of a newly seeded point of nucleation?

After your pointed statements about caution with statistics,you don't seem keen to apply that to your own musings. The blue line of dropped stations is insignificantly different to the red of the retained,and the agreement and trend is near identical over the century. And of the 402 discontinuous stations,what have you presented of their individual locations that we can speculate about site issues with any confidence?

Raving: what Nick said. Your cautionings apply even more to E.M. Smith's misguided amateur stuff. We know why he is getting nonsensical results: it's because of working with temperatures instead of, as would be appropriate for robust trend analysis, with anomalies. Do you understand this point?

The differences between the blue and red curves on Zeke's plot are well within the noise. They are meaningless. And they are of magnitude 0.05-0.1K, i.e., roughly an order of magnitude less than the global AGW signal. What is more, we (and that includes Zeke, see the comments there) also understand the main source of this noise: the failure to do a proper areally weighted station averaging (Smith's analysis has the same problem).

Martin (and others in the know about global SAT data analysis and GISS) @ 65:

I'd appreciate your thoughts on Smith's (D'aleo's and Anthony's programmer buddy) wild allegations made over at WUWT.

You can read his rebuttal of some of the accusations at:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=154&&n=123

Go to comment 150 by MarkJ.

I'm not familiar enough with the GISStemp code to know if he has some valid points or if these are just the ramblings of a mad man. I'd really appreciate someone in the know speaking to his allegation that:

"The PAPERS that support the Reference Station Method and the anomaly process may well have done "selfing" but that is NOT what is done in GIStemp. This is a common delusion among warmers and one they cherish dearly.

The reality is that a thermometer anomaly IS calculated against a "basket of others". It is also a reality that this is done long after all the 'in-fill', homogenizing and UHI calculations. Basically, the "anomaly" can not protect you from all the broken bits done before it is calculated.

Until they get past the fantasy of what they believe is being done and look at what the code actually does do, they will get nowhere.

This "Belief in the Anomaly" is just that. A "Faith Based Belief" in how they think the world works. It is not based on an inspection of what the GIStemp code actually does. "

Re: 64, 65

> Anomaly - Temperature relative to a reference median VERSUS Temperature absolute

> A persistent magnitude difference of .1 degree K and declining

I would say significant and not so meaningful.

Weather changes. Climate changes as well. The CO2 factor may or may not provide a discernible contribution to the observations. My intuition tells me that the Figure&Discussion are as indicative of systematic sampling bias as the overall trend indicates CO2's influence on climate.

I don't worry so much about the sampling bias. As with the glacier argument, it's all relative. The value is in the 'direction' of the arguments.

Overall I would label myself as a "Warming Denier". I'm strongly driven to forceful resistance by the strident insistence of those use every emotional and subjective tool that might be conceived.

Most strongly of all, I am appalled to see other scientists having to fall back on frantic, intense posturing and advocacy. They appear so helpless.
---
For me, "intuition" is the best argument that global warming has going for it. It is natural to expect increasingly prodigious emissions of CO2, heat and a myriad of other things to have consequential, accumulating effect.

But that is only intuition. Demonstrating that CO2 emissions are increasing is a formidable task. Taking it a step further and demonstrating that the gas accumulates and persists is all that more difficult. Linking it all to a trend of increasing temperature may be the hardest challenge of all.

Suppose we are already there. Granted as given! Here and now, the prodigious release of CO2 has caused 2 deg. C of global warming.

What does that mean? How does it bode for the future?

It means that the temperature has gone up by 2 deg. C. Life and humanity live in a harsh, diverse range of climates. Some will be less comfortable. Others will be more comfortable. Some may starve of famine. Others may drown. Humans have suffered such calamity from the outset.

Those who claim that our children's future are at stake, that we risk destroying humanity forget that 'brutal' in the norm for life. They also forget that almost all of the threatened misery is linked to our industrial, technical skill of increasing and sustaining high population densities.

---

As I see it, nobody understands climate. Then again "K dependent" population selection isn't understood either

Evolution isn't understood.
Cognition isn't understood.
Biological process isn't understood.

Maybe weather is understood 'somewhat'?
Our understanding of climate in it's infancy. We don't begin to understand it.

Running off half cocked vowing to change things massively is very premature. It is very likely to have strong, wasteful, counterproductive effect.

One such negative effect is ...

* Environmentalists lack credibility now. The worthwhile approach deserves gaining rather than losing ground

* Rational, physical scientists are also losing credibility.

No one has the answers yet.
---
I might not know about weather, nor about climate. What I do know is this ...

The earth and life have been around for a very, very long time. During that interval, the earth has been subjected to various massive, catastrophic, forcing distortions which loom far greater than humanities persistent, progressive release of CO2 gas.

The earth and life survived those many, various substantial onslaughts without runaway instability. It was not good fortune

A complex and as yet unrecognized suite of interactions **strongly regulate climate**

We ignore or deny the implicit existence and understanding of such hidden, background self-regulation at our own peril.

CO2 goes up ...
Temperature goes up ...

... but then what happens?

Not knowing is most foolish.

I feel that know nothing. I change my opinion each time I examine a situation. Most of the time I feel that I'm a raving idiot.

Please call me a 'denier' or an 'inept amateur'. When I see you saying these things of others, I immediately recognize that you are projecting yourself on to others.

'Inept amateurs' have the making of great scientists.
Being able to discover one's own "self-denial" is greart skill.

Good grief! "My intuition tells me...." is not going to produce much of value, is it?

Raving, I am not a scientist. I've been doing some intensive reading around the net and a through few decent books recently, and my informed "intuition" tells me a few things, with great clarity.

- The denialist "arguments", "evidence", science" are bollocks compared with the large body of scientific research and evidence on climate change. there is no realistic doubt that things are warming, and that there is good understanding of the core mechanisms involved.

-The denialist camp includes a weird mix, from loons and cranks, compulsive mavericks, the odd actual scientist who's got out on a limb with the theories being pursued, average people who would rather not take on board the disturbing realities that the research reveals, and , at the dark core, an unholy alliance of ideological and business interests who will use any tactics at all to cast doubt abd confusion.

Those denialist tactics are dredging deep in the mud - smears, personal attacks, blatant twisting of facts, distortion, and more than a few outright lies. Essentially PR and propaganda. This thread follows some examples of these things.

If you are genuine in your comments (and I really have my doubts - you look like a concern troll to me), then do some honest work, and reading, and go by the evidence. You don't sound like a fool, but you are likely just playing games.

Raving writes:

>*Repeating ...*

>>*If stations were purposefully dropped in favor of those with greater warming trends, one would expect to see cooler temperatures in the stations that do not have temperature records available*

>*The figure that Hausfather provides suggests exactly that.*

Raving, If you are saying the difference between the [warming trend](http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/0110_Figure-23.jpg) between the discontinuous and the continuous stations is "significant" (your word) than which has the "significant[ly]" greater warming trend?

If discontinuous stations show lower temperature anomalies pre-1950 and equivalent (roughly half higher and half lower) in the post-1950 temperatures anomalies, then what does that confirm? Removing the discontinuous stations means that the most up-to-date anomaly figures have not yet factored in the the stations with the greater warming trend.

Was that the point you were hoping to re-emphasize?

MapleLeaf,

I'm not 'in the know' about GIStemp. Someone like Nick Barnes would be, having, in the CCC project, written his own version in Python of the GIStemp code... ask him ;-)

I am also not a SAT expert, just a not-completely-dumb geoscientist, who knows that you have to go through anomalies if you want to get non-ludicrous results. Everybody does it! It's elementary.

As for 'ramblings of a mad man': more precisely, ramblings of someone found out doing something verry verry stupid and trying to bluster his way out of the embarrassment.

Thanks Martin. I like your conclusion.

> 68: If you are genuine in your comments (and I really have my doubts - you look like a concern troll to me)

A 'concern troll'? - No.
A **'confused' troll**? - Yes, much more so. ...

The thought of ***being 'troll'* in *'Science'*** is intriguing. Trollism provides tools for escaping 'subjective imprisonment'. ...
> - playing the devil's advocate
> - asking awkward questions
> - attempting to twist and distort the 'intended meaning'
> - playing stupid

When 'Science' is *susceptible to trollerism*, the 'Science' might possess a weak foundation. The *Creationist* attacks upon *Evolutionary Theory* is a good example. The criticism has some rudimentary credence, thus the criticism persists and remains ineffectively answered. The weakness in *Evolutionary Theory* does not reside with *Natural Selection*. It is most easy to forget that *Natural Selection* is the intensely physical, dead and non biological sector of *Evolutionary Process*. The other sector, the aspect which is hidden and ignored because it is fragmented, distributed and multiply directed is difficult to engage and describe in a reduced form. Put simply, it is indescribable. That doesn't imply that it is magical. How much of reality are we oblivious in regard, simply by virtue of our inability to **describe it**?

'Holistic' type process (fragmented, distributed, multiply directed) present a "show stopping" challenge. Possible strategies include. (I have no alternate approach. I see that all these paths are followed). ..

> - Sincerely blather in an effort to express the indescribable. Exit the blithering idiot.
> - Use rhetoric and posturing to create the appearance of *confident expertise*. In the absence of a persuasive alternative, this path becomes successful by default.
> - Work to construct a plausible description which renders the process in tractable, proper form. Although it is productive, progress is slow and it requires a monumental effort.
> - Avoid the topic altogether because analytical methodology is ill suited to the situation. There are more practical challenges, ***even* for physicists**

Haven't you noticed that many of the 'experts' in *Evolution, Ecology, Economics* and *Climatology* are excellent communicators? When there is a paucity of reliable, objective content, the great communicators rush in to fill the void.

Not much is know about *Climate Science*. We are in the early days of sketching in a few fragments. Forcing the issue is unfair. Being dismissive is unfair. Rushing to conclusion doesn't mean much.

> 68: Good grief! "My intuition tells me...." is not going to produce much of value, is it? Raving, I am not a scientist. I've been doing some intensive reading around the net and a through few decent books recently, and my informed "intuition" tells me a few things, with great clarity.

Value your "intuition" and read whatever suits your mood.

Without possessing tools which permit you to explore and 'construct' from *that which you already know* **implicitly** you will lose sight of what you have previously 'assumed' ('assumed'='intuition')

To my own reckoning, there an insufficient density and distribution of **nuggets of objectivity** so as to establish a *Chain of Continuity*

Without *continuity* the situation is indescribable or rather *nonsense*. Hence ...

> Good grief! "My intuition tells me...." is not going to produce much of value, is it? Raving,

Nonsense can be worthwhile. It is painful and a huge challenge to engage it to appropriate effect.

jakerman writes:
> Removing the discontinuous stations means that the most up-to-date anomaly figures have not yet factored in the the stations with the greater warming trend.
>
> Was that the point you were hoping to re-emphasize?

Discontinuous sites have been pruned. That fact alone introduces a systematic sampling error bias that my be revealed in the Figure that Hausfather has provided. The error is plausibly indicative of discontinuous sites being cooler and trending upwards more rapidly.

65 Martin Vermeer wrote:
> ... the failure to do a proper areally weighted station averaging (Smith's analysis has the same problem)....

Yes, that is the whole point isn't it. The average point 1K temperature differential crudely translates into 10 meters worth of height differential due to adiabatic lapse rate. All the data would be normalized to factor out station altitude.

Station altitude is so influential that ... a 10 meters adjustment in altitude (.1 deg C) carried over the interval of a century starts to come close to revealing isostatic rise. For example, Post-glacial Scandinavia increasing in height at the rate of 3-4' per century.

The point 1 degree K discrepancy trending upwards for discontinuous locations is trivial in sense of 'absolute' relative to the global average.

That the discrepancy is clearly discernible in the data and is relative with respect to retained versus pruned sample location *might* speak otherwise.

In my experience anomalies-of-anomalies are important and revealing. They are suggestive of 'sub-sampling' artifact. In this situation the artifact is systematically subtracted out of the data set. The end result might go either way. It can either mitigate pre-existing distortion or amplify what is already present.

---

What criteria would set 'discontinuous' sites apart from continuous locations? I would expect 'discontinuous' sites to be ...

> - More recent locations in new and/or growing population centers.
> - Later to begin collecting data and quicker to be discarded in favor of established, facilities in central locations that have a high recognition factor.

Sure, I am 'playing to the data' but nevertheless the followup ramifications seem plausible ...

> - New population centers evolve a microclimate more rapidly than large urban regions. I assume that microclimate has a scale dependent aspect relative to growth in size. This inherent differential scaling in growth might explain why discontinuous sites have an increased upward trend.

> - Older population centers tend to be sited in coastal and low lying regions. Civilization seems to progress inland and upwards towards harsher and more isolated opportunities.

The gravitation of site location towards earlier established population centers is an artifact generated by the increase and subsequent abandonment of monitoring locations.

It is difficult to see how such a peculiar contraction of data location 'trended over time' can avoid introducing trending distortion into the temperature record.

Raving writes:

>*The error is plausibly indicative of discontinuous sites being cooler and trending upwards more rapidly.*

We [now seem to agree](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate.php#comment-2235177).

That is if you are agreeing that the bias (how ever slight) introduced by the lag in incorporating all stations is biased (if anything) against warming. I.e. that is if you are agreeing that:

>*The [bias] is plausibly indicative of discontinuous sites [showing a cooler anomaly pre-1950] and trending upwards more rapidly.*

Which is the point that Hausfather [was making](http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/01/kusi-noaa-nasa/) when he looked to determine:

>*If stations were purposefully dropped in favor of those with greater warming trends*

They arn't, and the bias if anything is in the counter direction that that hoped for by DâAleo and Smith and their supporters.

jakerman wrote:
> I.e. that is if you are agreeing that:

>> The [bias] is plausibly indicative of discontinuous sites [showing a cooler anomaly pre-1950] and trending upwards more rapidly.

Yes.

For me it enough that a bias is apparent. That in it's own regard is compelling and worthwhile.

What this systematic bias infers and how it influences the past, present and future outcome is unclear to me. There are many different ways of rolling and re-sampling the data.

Notice that I am careful to avoid any suggestion of 'for or against'. I really don't know what the effect might be

The systematic bias exists. It is unexpected. It introduces sufficient uncertainty, confusion, enhancement and alternate possibility that reconsideration and elaboration is appropriate.

Raving:

Notice that I am careful to avoid any suggestion of 'for or against'.

That's not what you're doing in this sentence:

The [bias] is plausibly indicative of discontinuous sites .. trending upwards more rapidly.

By the way:

Wouldn't the growth in a large, established region of population have less of an immediate impact on their microclimate than the impact caused by growth to the microclimate of a newly seeded point of nucleation?

is entirely irrelevant to long term temperature trends because global long term temperature trend results do not depend on thermometers affected by changing UHI.

MapleLeaf:

there is a good description in a blog post by Nielsen-Gammon: http://tinyurl.com/yec3ads . It turns out that GISS uses a variant of anomaly averaging, where the average is computed sequentially with a dynamic reference period. At the end the average is transformed to 1951-1980. This is even better than vanilla anomaly averaging with fixed reference period.

Nielsen-Gammon also comments on the d'Aleo-Watts "report", committing cruelty to animals ( http://tinyurl.com/ykfy8aa ):

Meanwhile, lest we get the impression that the IPCC is the source of all, or even most, errors, a contrarian document has conveniently been published online ... It turns out to represent a refreshing change from the IPCC reports. While it's necessary to dig and dig to find errors in the IPCC reports, the errors in what I'll call STR are right there on the surface, easy to spot.

... and go to the end for the turning of the knife...

@Raving #67:

For me, "intuition" is the best argument that global warming has going for it. It is natural to expect increasingly prodigious emissions of CO2, heat and a myriad of other things to have consequential, accumulating effect.

But that is only intuition.

Pausing there - it isn't intuition - it's well known science. We've known since the late 19th century (Svante Arrhenius did some science on the topic) that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, and that it, with the other greenhouse gases, are responsible for the fact that the Earth's surface temperature is some 30K higher than it would be in the absence of the atmosphere.

It is the proposition that increasing the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere would not have consequential effects that is counter-scientific. That it is also counter-intuitive is but icing on the cake.

Demonstrating that CO2 emissions are increasing is a formidable task.

Really? Just look at fossil-fuel consumption figures; do you think we are using more or less fossil fuel in 2010 than in say 1950. Rising emissions is however not the immediate issue; CO2 residence in the atmospehere is.

Taking it a step further and demonstrating that the gas accumulates and persists is all that more difficult.

You do now that we can measure atmospheric CO2 content, don't you - and have been doing so directly for many years (does the name Keeling mean anything to you?) and indirectly for much longer.

Linking it all to a trend of increasing temperature may be the hardest challenge of all.

We have increasing CO2; we have a demonstrated mechanism whereby increasing CO2 will cause an increase in retained thermal energy within the atmosphere. If there is an increase in global temperature - and there has been - the choice as to cause is between pretty well-understood science, some unknown mechanism that despite its magnitude hasn't yet registered on the radar (and is at the same time masking the CO2 driven rise that we would expect) and magical thermometer pixies. Where's your money?

A beat up of Himalayan proportions

tlambert — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:33:51 +0000

A beat up of Himalayan proportions

Newspapers such as the London Times are reporting that the IPCC is about to retract something from the AR4 WG2 report:

A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

The claim was indeed wrong. John Nielsen-Gammon has written a detailed analysis of the error with an update here. I've discovered a bit more about it, which I will get to presently, but first I want to look at the Times statement that it was a "central claim" and the New York Times statement that it was a "much-publicized estimate".

Actually, the estimate does not appear in the WG2 summary and was mostly ignored by the media when the report came out. The Times story on the WG2 did not mention the estimate at all -- their story about the mistake is actually longer than their story about the release of the report.

I did a Factiva search for news stories that mentioned Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 and found 198 (not counting duplicates). But the majority of these were recent stories about the IPCC mistake. Only a handful of others attributed the estimate to the IPCC report (even though there were hundreds of stories about the report). More common were stories based on the 1999 New Scientist story, like this one in The Times which makes the same mistake as the IPCC, reporting:

Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 40 years because of global warming, according to a research study. ... One of the researchers involved, Syed Hasnain, of the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, said studies indicate that the glaciers in the region could be gone by 2035.

This is not to excuse the IPCC's error -- we expect higher standards from them than from the The Times.

John Nielsen-Gammon notes something else that The Times got wrong:

I am quite dismayed by the last paragraph of the Times Online article:

"The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus over climate change. ..."

Latest crack in the consensus??? The whole point is that the IPCC report didn't reflect the consensus. The consensus, as far as we know, was right all along. And the Working Group 1 report of the IPCC reflected that consensus, with solid references to the peer-reviewed literature. The lesson here is that the IPCC does not deserve blanket trust for what they write; their reports are only as good as the references on which they're based. And if the author had stuck to the IPCC's own protocols for relying on the peer-reviewed literature, this mistake would never have been made in the firsts place.

Of course, global warming deniers seized on the error to argue that the IPCC can't be trusted

The Opposition energy spokesman, Nick Minchin, a climate change sceptic, said the report highlighted the ''disturbing'' lack of scientific rigour around the IPCC 2007 report.

"These revelations provide even further evidence of the Rudd Government's recklessness in relying on dubious reports such as this as part of its scare campaign to push the urgent need to introduce a CPRS [emissions trading scheme] ahead of the world," Senator Minchin said.

But if even relatively obscure errors in the IPCC reports get corrected, that should increase our confidence in the accuracy of the more prominent statements.

And somehow Minchin's confidence in someone like Ian Plimer is unshakeable, despite Plimer's refusal to correct even the most blatant errors.

And deniers are also pretending that this error proves that Himalayan glaciers aren't melting. For instance, The Australian's Cut and Paste:

See the iceman leaveth. George Monbiot, in The Guardian on May 10, 2005, on why David Bellamy was wrong to suggest glaciers were not shrinking:

"It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost journals."

Or more likely stayeth. The Australian yesterday:

Flawed communication between teams of scientists caused the UN climate change agency to claim most Himalayan glaciers would melt almost 300 years earlier than forecast, glaciologists claim.

So, how can we find out what went wrong with the editing of the IPCC report? Fortunately the drafts and review comments are available on-line. In the second draft the offending passage states:

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in other any part of the world (see Table 10.10 below) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps getting warmer at the current rate. The glaciers will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates. Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035.

There was no cite at all for the claim and more than one reviewer noted that a citation was needed. If the chapter authors had followed this comment, all would have been well:

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) You need to quote Barnett et al.'s 2005 Nature paper here - this seems very similar to what they said. (Hayley Fowler, Newcastle University)

But the response was this:

Was unable to get hold of the suggested references will consider in the final version

Instead the authors added to a cite to this WWF report, which says

"In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high".

And here we see the perils of lazy citing. The IPCC report should have cited the WGHG/ICSI report, but the authors weren't able to get hold of it. If they had, they would have found that it doesn't say anything about the glaciers disappearing by 2035. The WWF report authors hadn't seen the WGHG report either, but relied on this New Scientist story, by a reporter that hadn't seen the report either, but had talked to the author of the WGHG report.

See also comments from John Quiggin and James Hrynyshyn.

tlambert Tue, 01/19/2010 - 07:33

Tags

Someone else pointed out the vaunted amateur auditors never caught this mistake in the 'Central Claim'.

Nonetheless, I was briefly trying to run this down several weeks ago, and had trouble finding the passage. It was buried in Ch 10 IIRC under a section that took some work to get to. Not prominently displayed at all, as there was a paucity of sources that looked at timing.

This, of course, doesn't absolve the section that was light on evidence. But it absolutely points to the denialists/pseudoskeptics who will grasp at anything to delay the realization that their ideology and self-identity is invalidated on the ground.

Best,

Thank you for searching the media archives - I was suspecting that this paragraph of the IPCC FAR was pretty much ignored until the error was found. If it hadn't been ignored, the error would have been apparent sooner, after all.

But the authors of that section should have some egg on their face. If they were having trouble, they could have at least shot an email to the people writing the corresponding material in WG1.

Good detective work by John N-G.

He does say this, though, which would seem to contradict Tim's finding here:

"But such an astounding prediction could not help but attract attention. And it has long since become effectively common knowledge that the glaciers were going to vanish by 2035."

It cannot have been ignored, and yet still be common knowledge. Perhaps a question to John N-G would clarify?

The story had also cropped up back in November 2008 without any reference to the IPCC. Here are examples of the [_Telegraph_](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3458927/Himalayan-glaciers-c…) and the [_Daily Mail_](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085491/Himalayan-glaciers-disa…) citing Muneer Ahmad of the National Geophysical Research Institute in Hyderabad.

I notice a lot of blogosphere coverage of this latest "scandal" doesn't even mention that the error was buried in WG2. I have the impression that WG1 was more rigourous even if Roger Pielke jr pretends otherwise.

Anybody noticed that Dr Syed Hasnain now works for. head of the IPCC, Pachauri's TERI organisation? What an incestuous world climate science is.

Maybe by "central" they mean that it was in the second of three documents. Central in my last sentence: "it".

What an incestuous world climate science is.

It truly does stand apart, doesn't it? In my last job we never hired anyone we knew or who were capable of doing the job, just to avoid any seeming incest.

New Scientist admits their 1999 article is the 'primary published source'. Pathetic!

Strange. I've seen no reference to [this story](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8387737.stm), which suggests that scientists might have "misread 2350 as 2035" in a 1996 article by VM Kotlyakov. The 'New Scientist' possibility is also mentioned but what was the real origin?

Stranger is why no one questioned this before, in the IPCC review process, in the climate science community, or in the many "sceptic" hotbeds.

OK, that'll teach me to read Tim's links first. I was referring to previous discussion about this on other blogs.

2 carrot,

Just to avoid confusion: the "F" in FAR means First. You meant AR4, I think. ;)

(Why they didn't use AR1, AR2, etc., from the outset is a mystery. Did they imagine they'd never get past the third one?)

So, in short (HA!):
Step 1.
UNESCO's International Hydrological Programme issues a report in 1996 titled "Variations of Snow and Ice in the past and at present on a Global and Regional Scale", edited by V.M. Kotlyakov. On page 66, it states the following:

"The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic ratesâ
its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive only in the mountains of inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian ice sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in some regions of Tibet and on the highest mountain peaks in the temperature latitudes. "

Step 2:
The government run India Environment Portal [publishes the following](http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/node/319) in 1999:

" "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high," says the International Commission for Snow and Ice ( ICSI ) in its recent study on Asian glaciers. "But if the Earth keeps getting warmer at the current rate, it might happen much sooner," says Syed Iqbal Hasnain of the School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Hasnain is also the chairperson of the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology ( WGHG ), constituted in 1995 by the ICSI. "The glacier will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates. Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square km by the year 2035," says former ICSI president V M Kotlyakov in the report Variations of snow and ice in the past and present on a global and regional scale "

Note the mistaken use of 2035 instead of 2350, the mistaken reporting that this figure appears in a recent ICSI report, and the mistake in quoting Kotlyakov - replacing 'The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth' with 'The glacier'.

Step 3.
Fred Pearce reads the above Indian environment portal article, and asks Syed Iqbal Hasnain for an interview. [The 1999 article that results](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221893.000-flooded-out.html) contains the following:

" A new study, due to be presented in July to the International Commission on Snow and Ice (ICSI), predicts that most of the glaciers in the region will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming. "All the glaciers in the middle Himalayas are retreating," says Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, the chief author of the ICSI report. ... Hasnain's four-year study indicates that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline."

Note the mistakes. Again, 2035 instead of 2350. Again, the claim that this appears in an ICSI report, which it doesn't.

Step 4:
The WWF issues a report titled ["An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China"](http://assets.panda.org/downloads/himalayaglaciersreport2005.pdf) in 2005. On page 29 it states
"In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: âglaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood (sic) of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very highâ.........The prediction that âglaciers in the region will vanish within 40 years as a result of global
warmingâ and that the flow of Himalayan rivers will âeventually diminish, resulting in
widespread water shortagesâ (New Scientist 1999; 1999, 2003)"

Note the mistakes. Again, 2035 instead of 2350, and again, the claim that this figure appears in an ICSI report, a direct copy/paste of the mistake made in the India Environment Portal article from 1999. In the citations for this report, no mention is made of the ISCI report or the Indian Environment Portal - and only one New Scientist article is mentioned, that of Fred Pearce's 1999 article, linked to above.

Step 5:
The IPCC publishes its Fourth Asssessment in 2007, and in [chapter 10.6.2 of Working Group's 2 report](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html), it states the following.

"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)."

Despite alluding to the Indian Environment Portal in its use of the words 'and perhaps sooner', this information is attributed to the WWF's 2005 report.

Note the mistakes - 2035 instead of 2350, the idea that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear, and the botch up regarding the numbers for area.

So the lesson for ALL involved should be: If it ain't published in the peer reviewed literature, it ain't worth NOTHING. Everyone from step 2 onwards deserves a swift kick up the rear, and all should issue corrections.

As a little Coda, Fred Pearce recently issued [this](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-m…) article for New Scientist. Rather than acknowledge his role in perpetuating this series of cock-ups, and rather than admitting that he never issued a correction [despite having read the ISCI report and noticed that no mention was made of 2035](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece), Pearce goes out of his way to perpetuate even more disinformation, claiming that New Scientist was the only source for this mistake (it wasn't, see step 2), claiming that the IPCC extrapolated the claim to include all glaciers (they didn't, this incorrect extrapolation was made in step 2), claiming that the IPCC added in the words 'very likely' (they didn't), and claiming that such language means a greater than 90% chance of occurrence (it doesn't - the IPCC use the words 'very high confidence' to indicate a 90% occurrence).

Tim, the error and its origins were discussed (albeit in less detail than n-g did) at the AGUFM. See page 40 this pdf of a ppt prepared for a press conference on December 14th (a week before n-g posted his discussion). There's a lot of other useful material on the present state of things in the Himalayas. Note that the fundamental premise of the Raina report is trashed on page 41. They don't say so, but in light of current information the original 2350 estimate (from 1996, and referring to glaciers world-wide) is obviously no longer valid.

Checking Google News, the 2035 date got some play but pretty much just in the Indian press. I think I noticed some of that, but didn't pay much attention to it since it wasn't all that different from the 2050 figure being quoted contemporaneously from Chinese researchers (and see this Times article from a couple of months ago).

I haven't had time to follow the trail of references, but be sure to read this recent paper from Hansen and (as far as I can tell pretty much all of) the leading Chinese researchers. While it's not the focus of their paper, they reference a much higher glacial water loss figure than would seem to be implied by the very low Ganges-only figure quoted by n-g (from a World Bank study I could find no trace of when I looked a couple of weeks ago). But considering that the Indian monsoon covers only the southern portion of the plateau, it may be that glaciers are far more important for evening out seasonal flows in the Chinese rivers.

By coincidence, and I haven't looked into it further, my interest was piqued by an AGU poster Michael Tobis happened to (partially) photograph when he was there. "Huge water amount seeps out of Nam Co, the second largest lake on the (Tibetan Plateau)" doesn't sound like a good thing. The lake is in the south-central plateau near Lhasa. FM posters don't seem to be available on-line as yet, but someone could contact the first author (email in the photo) and ask for the information.

BTW, one thing I've noticed is that even scientists get a little loose with their geographic references, sometimes using "Himalaya" to refer to the entire Tibetan plateau region rather than the specific chain at its southern edge.

Here are excerpts from AR4 (II) with regard to glaciers.
I'm unsure if anybody has picked this up but the inference is that only glaciers less than 4 k's in length will melt by 2035. Can somebody help out?

Tibetan Plateau glaciers of 4 km in length are projected to
disappear with 3Â°C temperature rise and no change in
precipitation. If current warming rates are maintained, glaciers
located over Tibetan Plateau are likely to shrink at very rapid
rates from 500,000 km2 in 1995 to 100,000 km2 by the 2030s.
[10.4.4.3,10.6.2]

source figure 10.4

For a rise in surface temperature of 3Â°C and no change in precipitation, most Tibetan Plateau glaciers shorter than 4 km in length are projected to disappear and the glacier areas in the Changjiang Rivers will likely decrease by more than 60% (Shen et al., 2002).

source 10.4.4.3

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

source 10.6.2

Some other glaciers in Asia â such as glaciers shorter than 4 km length in the Tibetan Plateau â are projected to disappear and the glaciated areas located in the headwaters of the Changjiang River will likely decrease in area by more than 60% (Shen et al., 2002).

source 10.6.2

Carrot Eater -
My basis for saying that the 2035 date was "common knowledge" is the following. First, I knew about it, and I'm neither a glacier expert nor an India expert. Second, the date was given heavy play in rebuttals to Raina's report. Third, and most importantly to my thinking, I did a google news search at the time (in early December) and turned up articles from major news sources such as [this one from CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/05/himalayas.glacier.conflict/i…) that calmly treat it as a starting point for discussions about water on the Indian subcontinent.
I highly recommend the PDF linked in Steve Bloom's first paragraph above. Thanks, Steve!

Tim:

Are you (rightly) blaming Plimer for the inclusion of this erroneous point? If you are I think you may be on the right track and further investigation would be warranted, particularly by you.

Tim - great investigation!

It seems a bit desperate to try and bring down the whole of the IPCC from one reviewing error. I've written a [blogpost](http://andyrussell.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/glaciergate-in-perspective/) trying to put this error into the perspective of the whole of the IPCC.

>My basis for saying that the 2035 date was "common knowledge" is the following. First, I knew about it, and I'm neither a glacier expert nor an India expert.

Erm, I can safely say that in 2007, any mention of glaciers in AR4 did not register with me. It has only been in the last 2 years that glaciers started to kick in for me.

Call it self interest, but rising sea levels were the only thing that made me consider glaciers to be important.

'It seems a bit desperate to try and bring down the whole IPCC from one reviewing error.'

Under normal circumstances I might agree, but Dr Hasnain and Dr Pachauri look like a couple of opportunists caught with their hands in the bicky tin.

Pachauri says he has no responsibility for what Dr Hasnain may have said and Dr Hasnain said, rather cheekily, the IPCC had no business citing his comments. They have both done very well out of all this.

The IPCC will fade into insignificance because a Republican was voted into the Senate - cap and trade is a dead duck.

Andy Russell - Link bookmarked :thumbsu:

"The IPCC will fade into insignificance because a Republican was voted into the Senate - cap and trade is a dead duck."

Ah, the logic of wingnuts--elections disprove science. It's either Cap and Trade or the EPA regulating CO2, BTW.

20 el gordo,

You keep doing it, don't you? Just when I think you've said something so stupid that you couldn't possibly top it, you prove me wrong...again!

John N-G: Thank you for adding some context.

TrueSceptic: Sorry, didn't mean to cause confusion with the naming convention.

I note that RC also feels as I do - better communication between the WG2 and WG1 people would help.

Based on my background, WG1 is of most interest to me. But WG1 is mainly interesting in an academic sense; it's WG2 and WG3 that actually matter policy-wise. I do hope there is no further sloppiness in those parts.

13 Dan R

Excellent description. What is it about glaciers/glaciation that makes people make really stupid mistakes? Remember the whole 55%/555 Singer/Bellamy comedy?

I was initially bemused, and somewhat surprised, when this story made such an impact, because I'd always assumed that the Himalayan glacier meme was a pop-sci/media beating-up, and that it was trivially obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of physics that there'd still be a lot of glacial ice hanging around long past that 2035.

Ironically, the people who have been so quick to jump on this bandwagon, after being so slow to understand the underlying science, will probably be just as quick to dismiss any potential nevertheless for glaciers to melt at an accelerated rate, and just as slow to comprehend why even a realistic rate of accelerated melting is of extreme concern to the human and non-human ecologies that are tied to glacial presence.

One simply cannot fill the bottomless Hole of Stupid...

Bernard,

As always, an excellent post (# 26).

You have nailed it. The fact is that the rate - rate being the operative word - of glacial retreat is of profound concern. Even if we are talking about 2350. One of the many fatal flows in the denialist mind-set is their complete inability to reference ecological, evolutionary or geological time frames in anything other than a human life time. To these manglers of science, 10 years is a fairly long time and 30 years is deep time. The fact is that very few of them are actually statured scientists and fewer still have any acumen in the biological sciences. They simply cannot - or, more realistically do not want - to place largely deterministic processes in their proper scale.

This explains why they consistently confuse weather and climate, and make outrageous claims about there being cooling since 1998. A poster on Joe Romm's blog made the appropriate point that the vast majority of the denialists do not derive their conclusions on the basis of science but on the basis of political ideology. Most of them are to the far right politically, and see any form of government regulation as an attack on liberty. Those few that are on the left who are denialists somehow appear to suggest that climate science is an example of western elites using regulations to suppress development in the poorer countries (this ridiculous assertion appears to be growing amongst some on the libertarian left, as I have noted).

Either way, most denialists are distorting science to camouflage their own political and economic views. This should have been obvious for the past 40 years on a wide range of subjects in which environmental regulations were involved; the anti-environmental lobby has always tried to give the impression that they are interested in science when they could not give a damn about it.

"Remember the whole 55%/555 Singer/Bellamy comedy?"
I sure do. Looks like Bellamy was the fall-guy for that one, copping it in both a [Monbiot article](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists), and a [subsequent T.V. spot](http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/are%20the%20glaciers%20melt…). Painful, but worth a look if you haven't already. Perhaps Plimer hadn't witnessed this head-on with Monbiot before he agreed to the same treatment, recently shown on ABC T.V., with similar results.

Bellamy's letter to New Scientist is still on record [here](http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18624950.100).

The key is not to know when a glacier or range of glaciers may disappear, without knowing future climate that cannot be done, except on the smallest glaciers that are almost gone. The key is to monitor there changes and the impacts. In fact we have alot of information of the retreat and reduced extent of the glaciers, but less of this is tied with good data to the water resource issues, including the expansion of hydropower usage on glacier fed rivers in the Himalayan region. Take the [Gangotri Glacier](http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/gangotri-glacier-retreat-…) as an example or the [Zemu Glacier](http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/zemu-glacier-sikkim-thinn…)

Shorter Jeff Harvey,

Only my view of the world is correct. All who disagree with me, whatever their political persuasion, are wrong.

[Dave Andrews](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/a_beat_up_of_himalayan_proport…).

At least Jeff has the laws of physics, and of biology, on his side.

BJ: You knew it was a sci/media beat-up and didn't tell the rest of us. Well, thanks for that, we can put you in the same box with Hasnain and Pachauri.

JH: Real scientists know that just one failure in an observation proves a theory wrong, but with so many journalist, politicians and scientists signed up to AGW it will take time to unravel.

Whether tall or short, Jeff Harvey seems spot on.

El Gordo at 32: 'just one failure in an observation proves a theory wrong'

You cannot be serious. It registered a few years back that the location and trajectory of the Pioneer and Voyager satellites in the outer solar system were anomalous with the predictions of Newtonian and relativistic equations.

Well, there goes gravity, if you're el gordo.

#28, that *is* a good Monbiot article.

"...
It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand.
You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals.
You must, if you are David Bellamy, embrace instead the claims of an eccentric former architect, which are based on what appears to be a non-existent data set.
And you must do all this while calling yourself a scientist.
..."

[El blimpo](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/a_beat_up_of_himalayan_proport…):

BJ: You knew it was a sci/media beat-up and didn't tell the rest of us. Well, thanks for that, we can put you in the same box with Hasnain and Pachauri.

You seem to be missing the point that I made

... that it was trivially obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of physics...

which would seem to put you in the same box as those others who don't have a grasp of the fundamental underlying science. Or should every trivially obvious point be tediously corrected for the benefit of scientific illiterates such as yourself?

Gawd, we're chasing our tails trying to educate you as it is, over matters that are just as banal, but more centered on the radars of the ignorant.

...just one failure in an observation proves a theory wrong...

You're confusing matters of the quality/nature of empirical measurement, with matters of logic.

That a theory may be disproved is not the same as an observation disproving a theory. Consider these two examples:

I have a theory that thylacines are extinct. I see a report on Fox news that a special effects artist who, incidentally, has never been to Tasmania, has a photo purporting to show a live thylacine.
Does this observation disprove my theory?
I have a theory that thylacines are extinct. I see a living thylacine sleeping in an enlosure, belonging to the Parks and Wildlife Service, and built to hold a group of endangered (and slightly chewed) bettongs bred for release into a rehabilitated habitat.
Does this observation disprove my theory?

Vince Whirlwind said:

You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand.

Aye. But a crumb, when it disintegrates, becomes two or more crumbs upon which the innumerable ascientific, knowledgeless who enjoy such detritus can continue to feast; and so on ad infinitum, or so it would seem.

Thankfully, there is [kill]file for Greasemonkey.

BJ: Point taken, but I'm still angry at the deceit and pomposity of Hasnain and Pachauri.

Longer Dave Andrews: *I do not know what the hell I am talking about but I will make a witless remark anyway. In fact, this is my style, since I never contribute anything of intellectual value here, anyway*.

Check the facts, Andrews: the think tanks and those affiliated with them ain't exactly speaking from a scientific platform. And most of them are far to the right. Moreover, look at some of their key contemporary arguments of the denialati and the "it has not warmed since 1998" canard is a constant theme.

El Lardo writes, *with so many journalist, politicians and scientists signed up to AGW it will take time to unravel*

Wrong on all counts. If this is so, why is it that virtually nothing has been done to deal with AGW since the alarm was first raised 20 years ago?

I will tell you why: because dealing with AGW involves the implementation of regulations that interfere with profit maximization of many powerful commerical elites. Given that many of our governments are utterly beholden to these elites (check out declassified government planning documents and the real, hidden agendas become apparent), then what government ministers say about AGW and do about it are radically different. But the anonymous planners behind the scenes, the ones actually formulating government policy, are the ones telling the truth.

As for the MSM, I find it quite remarkable that el Lardo claims to be an unemployed journalist and yet he can believe than many (do you mean most?!?!) journalists promote the argument of AGW. Really? What I see in the corporate-state MSM is denial by deception (much of the time) or out-and-out denial (no camouflage at all). In the former camp are those who do either or both of two things: first, they argue that ther evidence in support of AGW is large and growing, but rarely do they suggest why little or nothing is being done to deal with the problem, nor of the hugely well funded corporate backlash and propoaganda campaign that targets the general public and policymakers. The MSM, by and large, is owned by many of those commerical elites who are working tirelessly to stave off regulation, so this journalistic trick needs little explanation. The second strategy is to give the impression that the science is not settled and that there is a fairly evenly balanced split between climate scientists arguing in support of AGW on the one side and the so-called sceptics on the other.

Basically el Gordo you do not know what the hell you are talking about. Not now, not ever. No wonder your comments are routinely ridiculed here.

"Army Ration Packs" and "Fashion watch" are 'bots linking to what would appear to be commercial sites judging from the URL.

dhogaza said:

"Army Ration Packs" and "Fashion watch" are 'bots linking to what would appear to be commercial sites judging from the URL.

Well, look on the bright side: their messages make more sense than the usual denialobots that frequent Deltoid and other such erudite places!

dhogaza> yup, the spambots are out in force today. fashion watch's posts is a direct copypaste of another up-thread, and something similarly out-of-context in the glacier at islandofdoubt.

Even shorter jeff Harvey,

I am definitely right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and an idiot.

Much shorter Jeff Harvey,

My world view is all there is.

All-inclusive Dave Andrews:

I wouldn't understand science if it bit me in the ass, so I'll insult scientists.

Dave, I'm absolutely certain that somebody could disagree with Jeff about something despite not being an idiot.
In *your* case, however, you *are* wrong, and you *are* an idiot.

Longer Dave Andrews:

>If anyone critques a denialist meme they are really saying *"I am definitely right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and an idiot*".

>In fact I'm so frustrated that I'd go as far as to say that if people say stuff that I don't like then they are really saying "*My world view is all there is.*"

Shorter Dave Andrews:

>If you smackdown denialist memes, then you are intolerant.

Dave Andrews above says:

Only my view of the world is correct. All who disagree with me, whatever their political persuasion, are wrong.

This is sub-intellectual nonsense. It's an attempt to force a win not by substance by importing a rule.

Consider:

A says: P is true
B says: Not P is true
C Says: A says that anyone who disagrees with A is an idiot. Calling people idiots is wrong, so therefore B is correct and Not P is true

Here the imported rule -- not calling people idiots -- is given the status of a truth claim. Even if A had called those who disagreed "idiots" it would tell us nothing useful about the claims P is true/not true.

Dave advances no express rationale for importing such a rule nor any claim about its truth status. And of course, he doesn't justify his claim that Jeff Harvey calls/regards anyone disagreeing with him idiots either.

In short, Dave Andrew's tactics here qualify as misdirection, drawing upon spurious and specious reasoning. Even if the entire planet turned out to be composed of exclusively of idiots, this would continue to be true.

Dave Andrews, as I said, offers nothing here or anywhere else. He writes as if the points I made earlier are exceptional (e.g. not shared by many others or else lacking empirical support) when in fact there is a large amount of evidence which shows that the agenda of the bulk of the denialati (great word by the way BJ) is anything BUT scientific.

Again, if Dave Andrews could counter what I said in any way, shape or form I would be interested. But he offers no alternative, just vacuous, mindless quips in an attempt at denigration. To be honest, this is a tactic that is commonly used amongst those in ther anti-environmental camp. They do not attack the substance of one's argument, but instead try and ridicule and belittle their opponents. As I said before, they are not interested in the science but in promoting a pre-determined worldview that backs up a very political agenda. This may explain why the same people in the anti-AGW camp are many of the same individuals and organizations who have downplayed biodiversity loss, downplayed the effects of acid rain and ozone depletion, and promote deregulation and other policies characteristic of the far right.

Dave Andrews, it is clear to me and most others here that you do not know very much about issues of substance. If you did, you would offer more than the usual crap you deposit here. I suppose it gives you your daily "high" to do so, am I correct? Or do you challenge any of the points I have made? Why not give it a try? I certainly do not expect anything to come from you that might be of interest, as your posts have a history of being intellectually bankrupt.

I have picked up a rumour from a denialist goon that there will be another attempt at smearing Rajendra Pachauri in the Sunday Telegraph this weekend. Prepare yourselves.

The picador and the rodeo clown go into the ring to distract the bull's attention away from the matador or rodeo rider until the matador or rider can get back in position.

Dave is a really good picador. He's not here to win arguments. He's here to distract people from the arguments.

Be smarter than the bull.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=greenhouse-bananas
Non-Science Smear Campaigns

When I did environmental journalism, a key concept was a plume of underground contamination - where a poison moves through the soil and the water in a branch-y way over time and at what concentration, and so on.

It'd be interesting to draw a diagram with contingency being 1 degree of separation and map where this error made it to before being corrected.

I like the picador/rodeo clown analogy.

There are a lot of them here. And they are always engaged. And the clown wins, as they spoil the content of the thread. Ridicule them and move on. They only need to be exposed once.

Best,

'just one failure in an observation proves a theory wrong' -- el gordo.
--

So that means if I thought you had once made an intelligent statement ... ?

The picador and the rodeo clown go into the ring to distract the bull's attention away from the matador or rodeo rider until the matador or rider can get back in position.

Well, the picador is named after the pike-like sharp thing they carry, their purpose is to weaken the bull before the matador goes to work.

That analogy doesn't work well with DaveA, he's more off a toothpicador.

So that means if I thought you had once made an intelligent statement ... ?

...there would be something wrong with the data.

"The Economist" has picked up on this non-story.

As per usual, the denialists land like flies on a pile of manure (in this instance, microscopic in size) and flit off to their blogs and make a big stink out of it.

Criminy, these guys need to be taken head-on. I recommend laying into them hard and fast.

Don't forget the analogy applies to anyone who mistakes the picador or the clown as worth attacking. Pay no attention.

I've seen these mistaken claims from the IPCC repeated in other peer-reviewed publications, written by scientists who it seems should have known better.

It's annoying, since I'm a science journalist who covers climate change, and I'm trying to figure out what the actual facts are. It's hard, when the IPCC report is so widely referred to.

To try to help set the record straight, I started a site NotIn2035.com (http://notin2035.com), where I'm collecting references to these mistakes in various peer-reviewed papers and other writings by scientists.

I'm not trying to shoot down the IPCC, or deny climate change. I'm really worried about the fate of the Himalayan glaciers and the billion+ people who would be affected by their disappearance, and just trying to get to the bottom of things.

Mason Inman, your intentions might be honourable, but in my opinion you're blowing this out of all proportion. An entire blog dedicated to a minor mistake buried somewhere in the IPCC tome? That's breaking the proverbial butterfly upon a wheel.

Having said that, I quite like your other blog "Failing gracefully" although the formatting takes some getting used to.

> references to these mistakes in various peer-reviewed
> papers and other writings by scientists.

Have you talked to a reference librarian about this? It's a good idea -- chasing errata is a technical problem that comes up time and again. The original notion of hypertext -- two-way links, which didn't happen -- could have handled this.

The several different citation services, and Google and other search engines, might be worth talking to about this problem; it would be good if they'd cooperate. Never waste a crisis.

The Daily Mail discovers the same stuff Tim discovered days ago, about the draft comments (down at the bottom of this):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says…

Oh, and watch this space:
"... an analysis of those 500-plus formal review comments, to be published tomorrow by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, suggests that when reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal and his colleagues simply ignored them."
--------

Here's another place to check routinely for journalists doing due diligence, when a name comes up in science --Business Week's biography files:

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?pe…

Defenders of the IPCC, please, please, stop digging! The hole is quite deep enough for Mr.Pachauri and all his deputies and deputy-deputies to be dropped in and then filled in - although, hang on - perhaps another few feet deeper if you can manage it so that we can also drop in all the rubbish they produced. Yes, yes, I know we could burn it but remember, global warming!

Oh, my, they buried the punchline.

Look who's in charge of Policy.
RPJr. must be jealous.

" the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson .... Benny Peiser, the GWPFâs director, said the affair suggested the IPCC review process was âskewed by a bias ...'."

Hank,

Murai Lal has admitted that the claim about the glaciers was included in an attempt to pressurise politicians to action.

How many more times has this been done and when will you open your eyes?

> Dave Andrews
I'd guess you're referring to this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says…

This is a _good_ argument for bringing the science volume out first, well before the regional and summary volumes, instead of releasing all at the same time.

The scientists should have time to finish the science for the fifth report, then time and support to watch more carefully as the regional and summary volumes are put together, and to criticize the drafts. They will be ready with sharpened knives next time around. Reputations get destroyed by things like this -- and other reputations get made.

I commend Peter Watts's post of some time back:
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=886

---excerpt follows---

Science doesnât work despite scientists being asses. Science works, to at least some extent, because scientists are asses. Bickering and backstabbing are essential elements of the process. Havenât any of these guys ever heard of âpeer reviewâ?

Thereâs this myth in wide circulation: rational, emotionless Vulcans in white coats, plumbing the secrets of the universe, their Scientific Methods unsullied by bias or emotionalism. Most people know itâs a myth, of course; they subscribe to a more nuanced view in which scientists are as petty and vain and human as anyone (and as egotistical as any therapist or financier), people who use scientific methodology to tamp down their human imperfections and manage some approximation of objectivity.

But thatâs a myth too. The fact is, we are all humans; and humans come with dogma as standard equipment. We can no more shake off our biases than Liz Cheney could pay a compliment to Barack Obama. The best we can doâ the best science can doâ is make sure that at least, we get to choose among competing biases.

Thatâs how science works. Itâs not a hippie love-in; itâs rugby. Every time you put out a paper, the guy you pissed off at last yearâs Houston conference is gonna be laying in wait. Every time you think youâve made a breakthrough, that asshole supervisor who told you you needed more data will be standing ready to shoot it down. You want to know how the Human Genome Project finished so far ahead of schedule? Because it was the Human Genome projects, two competing teams locked in bitter rivalry, one led by J. Craig Venter, one by Francis Collins â and from what I hear, those guys did not like each other at all.

This is how it works: you put your model out there in the coliseum, and a bunch of guys in white coats kick the shit out of it. If itâs still alive when the dust clears, your brainchild receives conditional acceptance. It does not get rejected. This time.

Yes, there are mafias. There are those spared the kicking because they have connections. There are established cliques who decide what appears in Science, who gets to give a spoken presentation and who gets kicked down to the poster sessions with the kiddies. I know a couple of people who will probably never get credit for the work theyâve done, for the insights theyâve produced. But the insights themselves prevail. Even if the establishment shoots the messenger, so long as the message is valid it will work its way into the heart of the enemyâs camp. First it will be ridiculed. Then it will be accepted as true, but irrelevant. Finally, it will be embraced as canon, and whatâs more everyone will know that it was always so embraced, and it was Our Glorious Leader who had the idea. The credit may not go to those who deserve it; but the field will have moved forward.

Science is so powerful that it drags us kicking and screaming towards the truth despite our best efforts to avoid it. And it does that at least partly fueled by our pettiness and our rivalries. Science is alchemy: it turns shit into gold. Keep that in mind the next time some blogger decries the ill manners of a bunch of climate scientists under continual siege by forces with vastly deeper pockets and much louder megaphones.

----end excerpt---

Hank, thanks for posting that Peter Watts excerpt. I've been wishing someone would put that into words, and I wouldn't have known about it if you hadn't posted.

My own tour on the battleground of science lasted through two years of doctoral study. Watts's description matches my experience perfectly. In all humility, I didn't have the stomach to make a career out of it, but I know that's how science progresses.

Yes that's a beauty thanks Hank!

The discussion above from Hank is apt and recalls a reasonably famous example of the process of scientific advancement -- Louis father of microbiology Pasteur's contribution to the contemporary grasp of pathogens. He was a dispassionate and unblemished scientist, right? Well not quite.

In France of 150 years ago a debate amongst the comparatively educated raged between those who applied the ex nihilo nil fit (nothing can home from nothing) principle to the life of micro-organisms and those who believed in spontaneous generation. Pasteur was from the first group. He tried to prove his hypothesis by placing sterilised yeast in flasks that were hermetically sealed. When no bacteria arose, it seemed he had made his case.

Along came a skeptic (who, unlike our so called climate skeptics, fancied it was on him to actually do some valid experimental work)-- one Felix Pouchet. Pouchet deployed a similar flask to that used by Pasteur, using a heat-sterilised hay infusion rather than Pasteur's yeast-water solution. Mould appeared almost immediately. It seemed that Pasteur had been debunked, because the method Pouchet used (now called, tellingly pasteurisation after the man himself) was seen as capable of destroying 100% of bacteria. What they didn't know then was that some micro-organisms develop spores and so are not destroyed by pasteurisation as it was done at the time. Pasteur didn't know this so he had no defence.

There were several good scientific responses for Pasteur --suggesting that heat sterilisation might not be 100% effective and trying to establish that experimentally would have been reasonable, or perhaps trying to find some technical flaw in Pouchet's experiment.

Instead, he simply tried to bury Pouchet's work by ignoring it. He was publicly supported by the largely catholic establishment who, appalled at the spread of Darwinism in Old Blighty, saw Pasteur's account as being more consonant with the idea that life was created but once, ex nihilo nil fit than Pouchet's which seemd to imply it might just arise anywhere, and thus open the door to Darwinism and atheism. It sounds laughable now, but the point was that their religious prejudice encouraged them to give Pasteur a free pass. With hindsight, we know Pasteur was right, but he was right on grounds that were scientifically unsound, and he had behaved reprehensibly in holding his ground.

It fell to later generations of researchers to retrace Pasteur's steps and discover how, despite his flaws, he was right and why Pouchet's challenge was specious. Few recall these days that Pasteur was counted amongst those who rejected Darwinism and made and sustained a scientific breakthrough through flawed methods.

I think it was Bismarck who said that nobody who liked sausage should ever visit a sausage factory. Equally, nobody who hopes to benefit from science should see scientists as being paragons of ethical virtue or dispassionate truth seekers. That's why the best science, at least as far as public policy goes, is the science that emerges from collaboration, contest and conflict between our best trained scientific minds conducting their research in public view. That's why scientific consensus is both a good thing and not at all antithetic to bona fide scientific dissent.

It's also why scientific dissent is not at all the same thing as sub-scientific rock throwing and misdirection, such as one sees from our climate change agnotologists.

Like the Peter Watts piece? So did other people; do visit his website followup:

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1002
where he writes in part:
----
"... Iâve just been informed by someone codenamed âSciCuriousâ that my Climategate posting has been chosen as one of the â50 Best Science Blogging Posts of the Yearâ .... these Top-50 are anthologised in dead-tree format for posterity, which is pretty cool.

Just to be clear: weâre talking about that rant in which I claimed that science depends at least partially on the pettiness and vindictiveness of scientists, and in which I proclaimed my fond desire to see the Pope immersed in nitric acid. One of the best science posts of the year, tube-wide.

I donât understand it. I write about space vampires. I havenât published a peer-reviewed technical paper in more than a decade. And yet, these troublesome vestiges of credibility continue to haunt me.

It is, of course, an honor (albeit an unexpected one; whoever put me up for this, thanks)....

----

"Sausage and the law" -- misattributed:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Godfrey_Saxe

"Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made."

And I agree with Fran -- _that_ fits the IPCC process--the more open it gets, as it needs to, the less respect and more frantic opposition surface from the bystanders. That's not because it's the IPCC; it's because it's sausage, law, and science, all together.

Yes, there are people who can handle sausage, and law, and science even knowing how they are produced, without too many illusions.

It's a paradox* -- knowledge of how the world works interferes with many people's ability to cope with reality.
________
*Fermi?

The German magazine DER SPIEGEL has an article on the Himalaya business and the IPCC in general. It is interesting to note that the English article is a lot milder than the German version - the latter quotes Roger Pielke Sr. and Hans von Storch and mixes up the Himalaya prognosis, Pachauri's supoosed bias and the CRU hack. The English version is far more measured, and quotes Georg Kaser and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. See for yourselves:

[English article](http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,672975,00.html)

[German article](http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,673779,00.html)

Hank,

The Peter Watts article basically says scientists are human like everyone else, they have the same vices, the same saving graces, the same cliques etc.

But in the past you and many other pro AGWers have been quick to deny this when challenged by sceptics, for example over scientist following the money. Too often then your and others assertions have essentially been that science is a noble search for truth.

So which is it the later or the venal bear pit that Watts talks about?

Hank,

How many more instances I asked you? Well it seems like there are now plenty coming out of the woodwork. WWF and IUCN have been used several times as sources even though their work was not peer reviewed.

You're not going to be able to reference quote your way out of this one.

>*The Peter Watts article basically says scientists are human like everyone else, they have the same vices, the same saving graces, the same cliques etc.
But in the past you and many other pro AGWers have been quick to deny this when challenged by sceptics, for example over scientist following the money. Too often then your and others assertions have essentially been that science is a noble search for truth.*

Dave,

Being human does not mean that all humans are driven by the same values to the same degree. Scientist, by their life choices and demonstrated interests are disproportionately driven by knowledge and truth seeking. Bankers and big capitalist by theirs are show they are disproportionately driven by money.

Its not the same for every scientist nor every banker but it is for the weight of the their respective populations.