Posted on November 26th, 2010 No comments
Image Credit : Hobos 4 Life
Oo, it’s so hard knowing which version of reality to plump for, if you have to judge by the headlines alone.
These articles were published on the same day, based on the same report from the Meteorological Office, in different high quality newspapers :-
“World is warming quicker than thought in past decade, says Met Office : Report comes as scientists predict 2010 could be hottest year on record : Damian Carrington, The Guardian, Friday 26 November 2010 : The world warmed more rapidly than previously thought over the past decade, according to a Met Office report published today, which finds the evidence for man-made climate change has grown even stronger over the last year…”
“Global warming has slowed because of pollution : Global warming has slowed in the last decade, according to the Met Office, as the world pumps out so much pollution it is reflecting the sun’s rays and causing a cooling effect. By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent, 26 Nov 2010 : The latest figures from more than 20 scientific institutions around the world show that global temperatures are higher than ever. However the gradual rise in temperatures over the last 30 years is slowing slightly. Global warming since the 1970s has been 0.16C (0.3F) but the rise in the last decade was just 0.05C (0.09F), according to the Met Office. Sceptics claim this as evidence man made global warming is a myth…”
I think I’ll go with Damian Carrington’s version, because at least he mentions more than one possible reason for why Global Warming hasn’t been accelerating as much in the last decade as the ones immediately prior.
Despite the slow down in acceleration, the temperatures are still rising, so there’s no need to use the word “cooling” in Louise Gray’s sub-heading.
And there’s no reason at all for Louise to mention the anti-science so-called “sceptics”, who are actually deniers. They would deny the Moon was made of rock, if they could manipulate the tiniest piece of evidence, or twist the most innocent of words, to make it appear that there were uncertainties about the exact composition of the samples taken from Earth’s satellite by the NASA astronauts.
There is still an outside probability that the Moon could be made of cheese, folks, according to the type of argument put forward by the sceptic-deniers.
But as we all know, that’s impossible, because the Moon landings were faked, and in fact, the Moon is only painted onto the sky dome, as it isn’t actually there any more as it was removed during an undocumented altercation between nuclear states some time in the 1990s.Bait & Switch, Climate Change, Delay and Deny, Divide & Rule, Fair Balance, Global Warming, Hide the Incline, Media, Science Rules, Social Chaos, The Data Damian Carrington, denial, denier, doubt and uncertainties, Louise Gray, obfuscator, obstructor, sceptic, skeptic, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, twist and slide
Posted on October 7th, 2010 3 comments
Is something ailing The Register’s Lewis Page ? Despite having access to the text of a recent research paper about the Sun’s recent output, and its short-term impact on surface temperatures on Earth, and having had plenty of time to read plain English reviews of the paper’s findings in everyday language, he still writes it up poorly (in my humble opinion). Could this be due to internal bias, I ask myself ? Or is Lewis Page being wilfully contrarian ? Who can say ?Bad Science, Bait & Switch, Climate Change, Global Warming, Media, Non-Science, Science Rules, Social Change, The Data AFP, Agence France-Presse, contrarians, Damian Carrington, delayers, Deniers, Fiona Harvey, Global Warming, Grantham Institute, Grantham Institute for Climate Change, ICL, Imperial College London, it's the sun, Joanna Haigh, Lewis Page, Nature, New Scientist, obstructers, Professor Haigh, Professor Joanna Haigh, Sceptics, Skeptics, solar forcing, solar influence, solar radiation, solar radiative forcing, The Guardian, The Register
Posted on September 12th, 2010 6 comments
I made the mistake of attempting to contribute to the discussion following Andrew Montford’s “right of reply” to Bob Ward – and backed away from the keyboard when I found my very innocent comments being removed by the Moderator.
I wasn’t rude. I wasn’t nasty. I didn’t use any bad words. What is wrong with The Guardian’s Comment is Free ? It’s not free, that’s what.
If The Guardian want to have productive, open discussion on Comment is Free, they need to make sure that people who are genuinely trying to contribute relevant information get the platform. Otherwise it’s just a waste of space. I won’t be contributing to The Guardian Comment is Free discussions in future, and I’d advise you not to, either.
“MartinFulbright : 10 September 2010 11:33PM : @joabbess : I ask this this with all humility because I avoid answering it myself…But have you ever used calculus in a working way?”
“joabbess : 10 September 2010 11:47PM : @MartinFulbright : It’s a while since I did any serious Mathematics. I claim that the recent sharp rise in global temperatures is problematic. To try to explain what I mean, here is something that should be be relatively straightforward for you :- http://www.joabbess.com/2010/07/19/simple-integration/”
“mpaul : 11 September 2010 12:28AM : I think it’s abusive that the Guardian would hold Andrew’s response to Bob’s comment above in moderation for so long. Free the comment!”
“joabbess : 11 September 2010 12:50AM : @mpaul : I don’t think that Andrew Montford’s comments will add much to universal accord or understanding on the subject of Global Warming. Free the science ! :-
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008/fulltext : Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (July-September 2010) 034008 : doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034008 : Top-down solar modulation of climate: evidence for centennial-scale change : M Lockwood, C Bell, T Woollings, R G Harrison, L J Gray and J D Haigh”
Posted on September 2nd, 2010 No comments
[ UPDATE FROM JOABBESS.COM : GOOD LINKS FOR MORE INFORMATION : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/ipcc-report-card/ AND http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100831/full/467014a.html AND http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/ipcc-review-by-interacademy-council-iac/ AND http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2010/100830_IPCC.doc.htm AND THE SLIGHTLY NEGATIVE http://www.economist.com/node/16941153?story_id=16941153 ]
Entropy versus Order – the central battle of the Universe.
Also the struggle within the realm of Science, trying to make global sense out of a very disparate, creative spectrum of study on Climate Change.
Here, at the very hub, we find the bubble of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC – a wide variety of people with a wide variety of knowledge and viewpoints all trying to establish a common perspective.
The management of this enterprise has been under review, and thought to be found partially wanting :-
“InterAcademy Council Report Recommends Fundamental Reform of IPCC Management Structure : UNITED NATIONS — The process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce its periodic assessment reports has been successful overall, but IPCC needs to fundamentally reform its management structure and strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling with how best to respond to climate change, says a new report from the InterAcademy Council (IAC), an Amsterdam-based organization of the world’s science academies. “Operating under the public microscope the way IPCC does requires strong leadership, the continued and enthusiastic participation of distinguished scientists, an ability to adapt, and a commitment to openness if the value of these assessments to society is to be maintained,” said Harold T. Shapiro, president emeritus and professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University in the United States and chair of the committee that wrote the report. Roseanne Diab, executive officer of the Academy of Science of South Africa and professor emeritus of environmental sciences and honorary senior research associate at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, served as vice chair of the committee, which included experts from several countries and a variety of disciplines…These assessment reports have gained IPCC much respect including a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. However, amid an increasingly intense public debate about the science of climate change and costs of curbing it, IPCC has come under closer scrutiny, and controversies have erupted over its perceived impartiality toward climate policy and the accuracy of its reports. This prompted U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC chair Rajendra K. Pachauri to issue a letter on March 10 this year requesting that the IAC review IPCC and recommend ways to strengthen the processes and procedures by which future assessments are prepared…”Climate Change, Global Warming, Media, Science Rules Climate Change Science, Climate Science, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, George Monbiot, IAC, Inter-Academy Council, InterAcademy Council, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Myles Allen, Rajendra Pachauri, Science, The Guardian, UNFCCC, United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Posted on July 26th, 2010 No comments
At risk of tumbling after The Guardian newspaper journalists into a deep dark rabbit hole of possible intellectual compromise falls young Tim Holmes, who attended the Guardian’s “some parts of the debate have been edited out for legal reasons” Climategate event on 14th July 2010 :-
What on Earth were The Guardian thinking, inviting Steve McIntyre and Doug Keenan to share a platform with Professors Trevor Davies and Bob Waston at a public meeting ?
Don’t The Guardian know that the general public have had their views so seriously warped by the Climate Change sceptic-deniers that no serious, open discussion/debate would be possible ? All you seem to get from sceptic-deniers is hot-and-cold insults, sniping and over-detailed analysis of minuscule slithers of Science. Their position is rock-solid anti-Science, from my analysis. There is nothing to be gained from talking to them in my opinion.Bad Science, Bait & Switch, Climate Change, Delay and Deny, Divide & Rule, Fair Balance, Global Warming, Hide the Incline, Non-Science, Political Nightmare, Protest & Survive, Science Rules, The Data, Unqualified Opinion Climategate, Climatic Research Unit, CRU, Doug Keenan, Fred Pearce, George Monbiot, PIRC, Publid Interest Research Centre, Steve McIntyre, The Guardian, Tim Holmes, UEA, University of East Anglia
Posted on July 8th, 2010 No comments
I don’t want to write these words, but I have to. The Guardian newspaper, for me, has ceased to be trustworthy on Climate Change Science and the culture of Climate Change Science :-
Here, the editorial seeks to establish a position as an arbiter over the Climategate pseudo-scandal, that was only ever a scandal because of Media overreaction to the theft and malicious interpretation of e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
The Guardian takes the position of judge, jury and prison guard, without seeming to be adequately informed on the subject under discussion.
The editorial accuses the University of East Anglia (UEA) of “scientific stupidity” and “excessive secrecy”, which would be laughable if it were not so biased, in my view.
Posted on July 5th, 2010 No comments
In a scandal taking in virtually the entire mainstream Media, hordes of public commentators and powerful opinion-formers, and multitudes of social discussions at watercoolers, school gates, corridor junctions and dinner parties, a pack of Climate Change self-styled “sceptics” have run rampant, roughshod over Climatological Science, unhearing fingers jammed in their ears, baying for the blood of researchers over non-errors in the United Nations reports on Global Warming.
Now of course, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency has cleared the Science of all wrong-thinking, and naturally enough, the pseudo-scandaleers have retorted with foul cries of cover-up. As an example of the Media infection/infarction – note how different the following two newspaper articles are about the non-scandal non-whitewash report everyone’s not calling “Dutchwash !”.
(1) Daily Telegraph
This report is rather confused, I find. The journalist, or their editor, do not seem to have a full handle on what is accurate and what is assertion :-
(2) The Guardian
I think more balanced – but a bit frayed at the edges :-
Are they deliberately taking “sides” on this ? Creating an artificial “debate” ?
Summary : a few minor adjustments would have made the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report better, but there’s no need to change the report conclusions.
In other words – strong concern (not destabilising alarm) about the risks of dangerous Climate Change is an appropriate reaction.
How can Society express greater, now properly validated, concern about Climate Change without it degenerating into outright panic ?
And is Richard Black at the BBC, surprisingly, pleasingly, pitching it about right in his appraisal of “Dutchwash” ?
Posted on July 4th, 2010 3 comments
Christopher Booker, opinion-former, and seemingly bad-tempered seeming curmudgeon at the Daily Telegraph newspaper, has issued what looks like a threat to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in his weekly highly unsubstantiated rail against Climate Change science :-
“‘Climategate’, ‘Amazongate’ – when will the truth be told? : By Christopher Booker, 03 Jul 2010 : …Meanwhile, there has been a further twist to that other IPCC scandal, “Amazongate”, on which I reported last week. This centred on the claim in its 2007 report – attributed only to a paper from green activists at the WWF – that a slight reduction in rainfall caused by climate change could kill up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest. After exhaustive analysis by my colleague Dr Richard North of every document cited by the WWF to back its claim, it seems clearer than ever that there is no good evidence. I have given the WWF one more chance to come up with that evidence, and will reveal its response next week. If it is unable to do so, the IPCC will again be convicted of having made a wildly alarmist claim it cannot justify. Yet this is the body on whose allegedly unimpeachable scientific authority our Government and others propose to land us with the biggest bill in history.”
Eurgh. I’m quaking in my boots. What a terrible threat. Who will fear this peerless man ?
Posted on July 4th, 2010 No comments
I’m still waiting for some notable reporters, web loggers and commentators to retract, to take it all back on Climategate, which was a “pseudo-scandal”, according to Chris Mooney, in reviewing “The Climate Files”, a book on the stolen University of East Anglia e-mails, written by Fred Pearce :-Bait & Switch, Climate Change, Global Warming, Media, Political Nightmare, Public Relations, Science Rules, Unutterably Useless Bob Carter, Chris de Freitas, Climate Change, Climategate, delayer, denial, denier, Fred Pearce, Global Warming, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, New Scientist, Phil Jones, sceptic, skeptic, The Guardian
Posted on April 17th, 2010 4 comments
Last Wednesday’s “Sceptic Backlash” meeting ended with a lively Question and Answer session. Here it is as I recorded it :-
Q. (from Christian Hunt, a plant in the audience from Greenpeace)
- You say it’s just the journalists who are the sceptics. What happens if another Government comes in and scepticism gets political footholds ? [ reference to Conservative Party Climate Change sceptics ]
A. (Phil Thornhill, Campaign against Climate Change)
- People shy away from the problem if they can’t find solutions. We propose a million Climate jobs – there are lots of ways of dealing with the crisis. That’s the kind of thing we should be emphasising.
Q. Andrew Neill interviewed Caroline Lucas and asked her about the Phil Jones interview with the BBC where he said there had been no “statistically significant” warming in the last 15 years. Has there been no statistically significant warming or not ? Why wouldn’t Caroline Lucas, head of the Green Party, say “you’re wrong” ?
- I wrote her a rather long e-mail. You can’t really debate Science in the popular Media. Most people don’t understand.
- The tip for answering this kind of question is – in 15 years, it’s hard to spot a trend against the background noise. It’s a difficult thing to explain.
- It’ a clear case of how once you start debating the Science it gets twisted. She should have said “this is a typical case of the misrepresentation of Science”.
A. (Ben Stewart, Greenpeace Media)
- She was fine to say “I’ll take a pass on that”.Big Picture, China Syndrome, Climate Change, Media, Political Nightmare, Protest & Survive, Public Relations, Science Rules, Screaming Panic, Social Change AEI, American Enterprise Institute, Andrew Neill, Barack Obama, BBC, Ben Stewart, Bill Gates, Brasil, Brazil, Campaign against Climate Change, Caroline Lucas, China, Christian Hunt, Climate Change, Climate Change Science, Climategate, Conservative, Conservatives, Copenhagen, David Adam, denial, denier, Dick Cheney, Energy Security, ExxonMobil, Gandhi, George Marshall, Global Warming, Greenpeace, James Delingpole, John McCain, Mahatma Gandhi, Marc Morano, Obama, obstructer, Phil Jones, Phil Thornhill, Sarah Palin, sceptic, skeptic, The Guardian, Tories, UK Climate Impacts Programme, UKCIP, Watergate
Posted on April 12th, 2010 No comments
If you’re looking for a dose of sheer entertainment, then hop on down this Wednesday to Bloomsbury in London, for a public meeting about the dreaded, sharptoothed, hairy, boogle-eyed, Ye Olde Skeptik Backlash :-
There you should find Dr David Adam, esteemed and seriously reputable journalist from The Guardian newspaper, and an itchy-and-scratchy, rabble-rousing Ben Stewart from Greenpeace and George Marshall (no, not that George Marshall) of pork-pie-eating, Trilby-wearing-whilst-cycling and Climate anti-denial fame :-
Posted on March 2nd, 2010 3 comments
[ CORRECTIONS FROM JOABBESS.COM : ON THE ADVICE OF inel CERTAIN INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY GIVEN ABOUT THE INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS HAS BEEN REMOVED. ]
I’m sorry to note that Fred Pearce, writing for The Guardian newspaper is still hanging Phil Jones out on a crucifix to bake in the burning Sun :-
Fred Pearce quotes the withering “coruscating” evidence submitted by one or more members of the Energy sub-group of the Institute of Physics, and demands us to accept that it is adequate commentary on Phil Jones’ behaviour (behaviour that we don’t accurately know, but has been described to us by people misinterpreting his e-mails, which were stolen).