I don’t expect much from it in terms of any kind of sensible, relevant reply, but here’s my two eurocents’ worth, as loaded at :-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/
The BBC are undergoing a review on balance in Science reporting. They need to get Climate Change right, and that could start by one of their programme editors actually trying to understand what programmes like this do to an unprepared or semi-prepared audience.
The Newsnight audience have been left with the view that “maybe Climate Change is not so bad after all”, which is the worst take-home message they could be given.
See further down the post for e-mail traffic related to the Newsnight broadcast of 23rd August 2010.
Dear BBC,
I wish to point out to you that certain comments made by Andrew Montford on BBC Newsnight on 23rd August 2010 were inaccurate. I viewed the part of the programme where he was interviewd on iPlayer, but this now appears to have been cut from the online show for that date :-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight/
One comment in particular will, I believe, require an apology from BBC Newsnight. The segment of the show in which Andrew Montford appeared closed with a question directed to him specifically from the presenter Kirsty Wark, on the subject of Climate Change evidence, to which Andrew Montford replied “we just don’t know”.
This is inaccurate. We have report after report on the clear incontrovertible evidence of Climate Change and its significant impact on the Earth’s biosphere.
The question is not “does Climate Change have any impact or does it have some impact ?” The Science has moved beyond that kind of question, as Kirsty Wark should know and should have reflected in her presentation of the show.
The question is not even, “is Climate Change going to affect us all somewhat or is it going to affect a lot of people quite badly (while the rest of us will be OK) ?”
The real question at the frontline of Science about Climate Change should be “is Climate Change bad or is it really serious ?”, the answer to which is “it’s probably going to get really quite bad indeed”.
I would also like to complain about Kirsty Wark’s introduction to the segment on Climate Change when she smirked at the camera and said “but is is true ?”
Is Kirsty Wark a Climate Change Scientist ? Does she know anything about Climate Change Science ? Can she possibly dare to offer an opinion about it or question what the Scientists have said ?
I think BBC Newsnight was irresponsible in broadcasting this interview without caveats. The last word should have been given to the Science, not the denier Andrew Montford who has no credentials, and now, no credibility whatsoever.
My opinion is that denying the clear, well-documented evidence of significantly damaging changes in the Earth system is as bad as denying the Holocaust, or that HIV infections lead to AIDS, or that smoking gives people cancer.
Climate Change and its damages are not somewhere off in the future, as Andrew Montford asserts. Climate Change is real and it’s happening now, and the overwhelming majority of the world’s Science academics and institutions have produced reports and research articles detailing this fact.
Why Newsnight thought they should invite somebody with views so completely opposed to the facts on to the show to pronounce on Climate Change is beyond my understanding.
There is no debate in Climate Change. There is only one position, and that position is that it’s serious and getting worse, although at the moment we just don’t know whether that’s going to turn out as “horribly bad” or “incredibly dangerous”.
Andrew Montford’s view simply does not count and he should not have been invited, not even in the name of so-called “balance”. The “balance” you should have sought would lie between those Scientists who feel that Climate Change is “abrupt and dangerous” and those who feel that it is “catastrophic”.
I demand an apology from BBC Newsnight and from Kirsty Wark for their biased, inaccurate reporting on Climate Change.
Look, it’s not a brilliant, erudite complaint. There’s no room for citations, references and discussion of the actual Science.
Kirsty Wark messed up. It’s time for her to admit that she now seems a lot like the “Bridget Jones” of Science reporting – embarrassed and embarrassing.
You won’t catch me talking to BBC Newsnight, ever. Such mistreatment of the Science deserves being given a very wide berth.
Here follows some e-mail traffic related to the broadcast.
Here’s what Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science had to say about the Newsnight programme :-
“Subject: ‘Newsnight’ losing the plot? : Andrew Montford has pointed out on his blog that he is due to appear on ‘Newsnight’ this evening about the link between the floods in Pakistan and climate change. I had heard rumours that the Newsnight editor now thinks all climate change coverage should include a ‘sceptic’ and this seems to be confirmation. I’ve left the comment below on the ‘Newsnight’ blog. I see that Andrew Montford is bragging on his Bishop Hill blog that he is an interviewee on this evening’s programme about the link between the floods in Pakistan. His only contribution to the climate change debate so far has been a controversial book about palaeoclimatology, so it is not clear what his expertise on climate change and extreme weather is meant to be. Or perhaps he will be representing Lord Lawson’s group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which now regularly provides the ‘balancing’ voice of dissent every time a scientist is interviewed about climate change on ‘Newsnight’. If so, this is presumably evidence of the commitment of ‘Newsnight’ to impartiality rather than accuracy? And can I look forward to further instances of this balance by for instance, including comments from a creationist every time there is a story about evolution?”
George Marshall of the Climate Outreach Information Network responded, “Dear Bob and all, I believe that it is entirely appropriate (and important) to call a news programme directly and complain about their coverage- all calls are logged and recognised (if not heeded) by editorial staff. Here are the numbers for standard complaints, though I find that it is usually much more effective to ask for the programme office and speak to the desk staff (or better still the editor involved with the problem piece) directly rather than being fobbed off with someone in a call centre. I have done this myself many times and enjoy putting them on the spot and I think a good grilling from you, Bob, would teach them a lesson!”
MEDIA COMPLAINTS
Channel Four and ITV News -0207 833 3000 and ask for liaison line (recorded messages checked hourly)
BBC TV and Radio Complaints Line-08700 100 222 (someone staffing the line 24 hours day)
Channel Five Complaints Line – 0845 7050505
“And if you want to be more personal, you can usually ask for any programme news editor or a specific journalist through the switchboard.”
BBC Radio Switchboard 0207 580 4468
ITN Switchboard 0207 833 3000
Channel Five Switchboard 0207 550 5555
BBC TV Switchboard 0208 743 8000
Chris Keene, green politician wrote in reaction, “I suspect that the editors genuinely believe there is scientific controversy, and thanks to the UEA email theft (I won’t dignify it with the term ‘climategate’ since it implies wrongdoing by UEA) they suspect there is a conspiracy by scientists to exaggerate climate change to get more money for research into it”
Christopher Shaw wrote, “Dear all, I have been following the work of Medialens (one of the editors being…David Cromwell) since the inception of that project. The work of Medialens has shown repeatedly that the BBC is the voice of the establishment on certain areas, such as economics, foreign policy, the wonders of Western democracy etc etc. However, I think the BBC has also tried to ensure that its coverage is accurate (I think a separate thing from bias). Thus I really struggle to make sense of why they insist on airing the opinions of contrarians as science, when of course they are simply value statements, grounded in particular attitudes to risk. What issues are deemed by the BBC to be in need of impartiality is very revealing of the BBC’s relationship to power – for example dead British soldiers are invariably described as heroes, with no perceived need to balance this opinion.”
A reply from John Nissen, “Hi Chris, I think you are dignifying the BBC editors! They really should know better. Any questioning around climate scientists would have put them right. The scientists are not exaggerating global warming or its affects. Indeed, in the program they asked whether the UEA business had made scientists more reticent. So the editors must realise that scientists are liable to understate the dangers, not overstate them. The program asked a simple question – about influence of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) on the floods – and managed to give credibility to the “don’t know” answer, thus giving the oxygen of publicity to climate sceptics. The program was a disgrace. But the BBC is not alone. It seems that, as the effects of global warming become more and more apparent, the media will more and more downplay them. Wishful thinking has become editorial policy. However, there is the occasional glimmer of reality breaking through, from none other than the normally sceptic Daily Mail
86 replies on “Newsnight : Complain to the BBC”
Certainly Kirsty Wark is no climate scientist but are you, yourself a climate scientist?
@Nigel
Well, Nigel, I studied Physics, and I’ve been reading Climate Change Science on and off for the last 25 years. I don’t claim to know everything, but I am clear about a number of important things, for example the fact of increased Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas emissions causing accumulation in the Atmosphere causing Global Warming. As I say, that’s a fact.
As for the general living conditions on Earth, studies have almost unanimously shown an unrelenting pattern of change, consistent with Climate Change Science projections. Knowing that means I am way ahead of the average BBC TV viewer. But why do I know more than the avergage BBC TV viewer ? And why doesn’t the BBC know enough to present the basic facts to people every time they mention Climate Change ?
Being scared of the impacts that the facts may have in the public mind doesn’t make the facts go away.
There’s no use pretending that the facts aren’t there, or softening their impact.
Wake up ! Greenland’s melting ! The Arctic Sea Ice is dripping away !
I know some people think that sounding the alarm is negative. I think that sounding the alarm is an essential duty of everybody who knows the facts, even only some of them.
There is no point in sounding the alarm without offering rescue. There are things that can be done to save us from Climate Doom. We need to stop using Fossil Fuels, which means the Fossil Fuel companies will need to diversify out of Carbon Energy. Fast.
Are you surprised that the Fossil Fuel companies spend so much money on spreading disinformation ?
Are they waiting for the “Great Carbon Bailout” – for taxpayer money to be spent helping the Fossil Fuel companies to convert all their Energy supply to Renewable sources ? What do you think people propose a Carbon Tax for ? It’s all about feeding the private Energy companies enough public wealth to convince them to change course and stop mining and pumping Fossil Fuels.
“There is no debate in Climate Change. There is only one position, and that position is that it’s serious and getting worse, although at the moment we just don’t know whether that’s going to turn out as “horribly bad” or “incredibly dangerous”.”
Oh yes there is debate. Natural climate change is winning the debate hands down. And natural climate change certainly could be very dangerous if the Holocene interglacial ends and we cool into the next, and very overdue, ice-age.
Methinks Jo that your scientific understanding is very poor (horribly bad or incredibly dangerous).
You guys really are religious nuts. First of all a programme about the Pakistani floods being caused by climate change is in itself bound to fail (a) because they’re not, they’re part of the problems caused by the stationary jet stream, at least according to NASA and (b) because even if they were we would need a sustained recurrence of these events over decades to claim the climate had changed.
You make the claim that Kirsty Wark isn’t qualified to talk about climate change because she isn’t a climate scientist. Does that mean we can’t discuss the existence, or not, of the Higgs Boson because we’re not physicists?
Finally, the “evidence” is not uncontrovertible if it were there wouldn’t be a sceptic on the planet.
1. It is warming, and has warmed about 0.8C in the last 100 years or so (IPCC);
2. About 50% or the warming can be accounted for by natural forcings (IPCC) it is “very likely” that the other 50% is caused by the increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution (IPCC). In all other science and engineering “very likely” is technically termed as a “guess”;
3. If the CO2 in the atmosphere it will cause a rise of 1.2C (Stefan-Boltzmann Equation for Black Body Radiation);
4. If the earth’s temperature rises it causes more water to evaporate (numerous text books);
5. This additional water vapour will stay in the atmosphere as water vapour and will not turn into clouds (guess by climate modellers);
6. This will cause an increase in temperature of between 1.5C and 5C (another guess by climate modellers)
That doesn’t look like uncontovertible evidence to me, it looks like someone is trying to frighten people into something. In fact it looks remarkably like the tactics of a religious group. “Humans are evil, they must change their ways to (insert Isamic, Christian etc.) otherwise disaster will strike them.
@PhillipBratby
Have you not read the most recent Climate Change Science on that question of ice ages ?
Global Warming has indefinitely, perhaps permanently, postponed the next ice age.
The Earth was cooling down until about 1880. That trend was broken by manmade Global Warming and has not been resumed. The “mid-Century cooling” of the 20th Century has been shown to be mostly a combination of (a) an arte/i/fact of a glitch in data collection in the mid 1940s (b) Global Dimming from massive industrial production that ramped up during the Second World War – the aerosols only being controlled in the early 1970s (c) natural internal variability in the Climate system.
Jo, I don’t question you’re scientific knowledge, but come on:
“As for the general living conditions on Earth, studies have almost unanimously shown an unrelenting pattern of change, consistent with Climate Change Science projections.”
That is palpably untrue, the forecasts have constantly changed to accommodate all weather events. Hurricanes haven’t increased (nor should they if we get warmer), last year’s cold winter wasn’t forecast, but was accommodated in the forecasts. There is no single weather event that isn’t accommodated in the forecasts, and if the alarmists hadn’t hoisted themselves on their own petards by declaring last winter as weather they’d be telling us now the Russian heatwaves were forecast.
“Wake up ! Greenland’s melting ! The Arctic Sea Ice is dripping away.”
Now that would be worrying if it was the first time it’s ever happened, but it isn’t, the Arctic ice disappearing is common throughout recent history and has been documented, and, of course, every schoolchild knows that the Viking were farming in Greenland around a 1000 years ago.
You also forgot to mention that the Antarctic ice is increasing.
“There is no point in sounding the alarm without offering rescue. There are things that can be done to save us from Climate Doom. We need to stop using Fossil Fuels, which means the Fossil Fuel companies will need to diversify out of Carbon Energy. Fast”
We simply can’t diversify out of Carbon Energy in anything like to timescales the alarmists are requiring to stabilise the CO2 in the atmosphere. You’re a physicist, you should be aware of how long it took for the ideas of Faraday and Maxwell to get to prototype and how long after that to get to industrial production. To leave fossil fuels now on the basis of hysterical scientists would be disastrous for the human race, it’s not going to happen. It isn’t sceptics who’ve scuppered Kyoto and Copenahagen it’s realism.
“Are you surprised that the Fossil Fuel companies spend so much money on spreading disinformation ?”
The only surprise I have is that anyone believes this canard. Fossil fuel companies provide 10 times more money to climate science research than they do to sceptics. The sceptics, rather than the “well-funded, well organised” meme presented to the world by the alarmist are a rag tag army of amateurs with qualifications in science, engineering and mathematics, all disciplines where “very likely” has no meaning whatsoever as an indication of cause and effect.
Why is the BBC breaking it’s charter by taking a pro climate change position?
Apparently this is backed up by a set of scientists who told them this, but we aren’t allowed to know who they are.
ie. Even if you believe in Global warming, breaking the law to push the agenda is wrong, and doing on the basis of secret advice even more so.
@Jo:
Phew. I’m glad global warming has indefinitely, perhaps permanently, postponed the next ice age. I’ll throw away my snow shovel which I nearly wore out during last winter’s warm weather.
Evidence please.
How far did you get studying physics? Have you practiced it since finishing studying it?
Jo,
“The Earth was cooling down until about 1880.”
Really – I thought the Little Ice Age ended in the eighteenth century? Certainly every temprature record shows genereal increase since the early-nineteenth century (indeed, all the proxies do as well – perhaps one of the few things that records and proxies agree on). Is this a typo, or have the goalposts been moved again?
Incidentally, one would expect some natural variation during a period of increasing temprature, so there would be short coolings, such as the mid-century episode (and, to be fair, possibly now). You do not have to explain these away – to do so suggests we have greater understanding of the climate system than we do. And the mid-century cooling has not be shown to result from anything – it has been suggested or modelled that it has. If you are keen on good science, it would be sensible to use the correct language!
“I am clear about a number of important things, for example the fact of increased Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas emissions causing accumulation in the Atmosphere causing Global Warming.”
Hmmmm. To what level did you, as explain to Nigel, “study physics”? (A first-year meteorology student would find the above comment laughable.)
The Earth was cooling down until about 1880.
Citation required.
The “mid-Century cooling” of the 20th Century has been shown to be mostly a combination of (a) an arte/i/fact of a glitch in data collection in the mid 1940s (b) Global Dimming from massive industrial production that ramped up during the Second World War – the aerosols only being controlled in the early 1970s (c) natural internal variability in the Climate system.
Citation required.
Merely repeating a mantra doth not make it true, sorry.
Jo, are you now telling us that you are able to predict the (absence of the) next iceage!? That is quite a preposterous statement.
We have had at least three warm periods during the present interglaciation prior to the present one. Presumably they all were warmer than the present one.
And are you seriously stating that the warming (which actually occured already from 1850, rather there was cooling between 1880 and 1910) is caused by humans?, ie prior to notable increase in CO2-levels from ~1940 and onwards?
Are you not aware of that the aerosol-dimming is an additional hypothesis neccessary to suport the original one och CO2 being the driver? And that, as you do actually include, the natural variations are far from understood, which however only appears as anargument when lack of warming need to be ‘explained’, never the other way around?
Are these things completely new to you, although you state you’ve spent 25 years reading about the climate science?
Anyway: What is a Climate _Change_ Scientist?
“Have you not read the most recent Climate Change Science on that question of ice ages ?”
Well I have, and it is composed of nothing short of wild guess mathematical speculations. They are not composed of “observations”, “experiments”, etc., but rather of very bad (in the sense of having lack of skill) untested models.
IOW, they mean nothing. Oh and congrats for having studied “physics”, so therefore you are entitled to say everything while Montford isn’t entitled to say anything at all. How I love the smell of arrogance in the morning.
Dear BBC,
Jo writes ‘There is no debate in Climate Change’. But, Jo, doesn’t Andrew Montford’s book The Hockey Stick Illusion describe just such a debate between honest and reputable scientists over whether the recent period of global warming is out-of-the-ordinary or not?
There are many important aspects of climate science about which there is substantial and active disagreement between experts. Take for example the question of relative importance of different human impacts (such as rural land use, urbanisation, ‘greenhouse’ gas emissions, brown haze, sulfate aerosols etc.) on measured surface temperatures. In this branch of climate science there are major discrepancies between the orthodox view as expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the abundant published peer-reviewed findings of R.A.Pielke Snr and his co-workers in the University of Colorado in Boulder. In all branches of science such disagreement is normal and desirable – indeed without debate scientific progress would be impossible. Long live science!
How many time must the obvious be stated.
THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING.
Nobody is disputing this fact, not Andrew Mountford, not Steven Mcintyre, not Richard Lindsen, NOBODY! NOBODY is denying that the climate is, has been and will continue to change.
Humans always have and always will have an effect on the environment. We build things, we divert rivers, we take water fro areas where we shoudn’t. We cut down trees and pollute the oceans.Our personal and industrial secretions are everywhere.
Although we interfere with and change our environment, we do not have the power to control our atmostphere because we do not know how it works. Computer models don’t do science, they reflect the biases that are built into their programs. Whilst there is evidence of climate all around us and we can predict weather events at a local level, based on historical data, anything beyond that is outside our ability.
I Knwo, as the vast majority of people know, that the climate changes. What i do not know and can find no evidence for is the anthrophogenic content of that change, other than in “computer models” Empirical evidence todate contradicts those models and will, in my opinion, continue to do so because they are WRONG
JA ‘Global Warming has indefinitely, perhaps permanently, postponed the next ice age’
This is excellent news. Ice Ages are Bad Things. Very little sunlight is absorbed and very few crops grow – go and look at Antarctica.
Since we need crops to grow to feed the increasing population that we anticipate, then a slight increase in temperature (makes crops grow faster) and an increase in CO2 (makes crops more abundant), is all Good News.
The minor collateral effects predicted by the doom merchants are a price well worth paying to avoid the catastrophe that a new Ice Age would bring.
I agree Luis – one thing that turned me from someone deeply concerned about AGW and mans role was the “settled science” arrogance of people like Jo.
The arrogance that only those who “believe” can possibly be used by the likes of the BBC is a classic example.
Jo – you do real science a dis-service.
Advocacy has no place in scientific debate.
Like most people in the UK – I agree that man must have a cause and effect on our environment and that means climate.
What is wrong with the “old school – hockey stick” based spin is that the data was clearly manipulated. And your beliefe system is “old school” – it has been superceded.
UK Met Office is now having to re do its data.
The Canadian equivalent data is seen to be woefully inadequate.
New Peer reviewed statistical analysis shows that the Cataclysmic conclusions Climatologists jumped to with this dodgy data was more than just a jump to far – it was bordering on deception.
And now even Wiki is waking up to the blatant spin and information abuse that surrounds “Climatology”.
My advice is that you need a reality check because the truth is galloping away from you whilst you struggle with shutting the stable door.
It is too late – it is over – no one believes the hype and spin. What we need now is real and truthful data – not spin doctors like you on a mission to bend the facts to your perceived version of reality.
Your other post is desperate in its desire to state “Climategate? – nothing to see – move along!”
Your notoriety as a biased and flawed commentator came to the fore with your desire to spin a BBC report a year or two ago.
And now you have a hissy fit because Montford states the truth.
The truth – something that I really do not think you are capable of recognising anymore.
I am surprised that JA thinks that the case for AGW is so weak that it will be fatally undermined by Mr Montford saying ‘we don’t know’? Can it really not stand up to this mild-mannered scepticism?
An ‘unprepared’ reader might see this and think that the complainer is shouting so loud because she knows that it is only by drowning out the critics that her case is allowed to pass without genuine and robust examination. And that the BBC does not employ any scientists in its ‘science’ team who could make a sensible appraisal.
But, like JA, I too studied a ‘hard’ science (Chemistry) to Masters level, and find the case for CAGW as currently presented to be entirely unconvincing.
I’d just like to add that Mr Montford also studied Chemistry to degree level, if you want a ‘my qualification is better than yours’ competition, he stacks up well against your degree in Physics.
Please grow up and shed your mantle of self-righteous certainty. You diminish yourself and your case.
pesadilla …
Strictly speaking, there are those who deny that climate is changing. At least for the 1000-2000 years before the 20th century. Or at least they are working really really hard at it, that is att getting rid of the midieval warm period. But then again, you could argue how successful they have been, or how sustainable that was …
“I wish to point out to you that certain comments made by Andrew Montford on BBC Newsnight on 23rd August 2010 were inaccurate. I viewed the part of the programme where he was interviewd on iPlayer, but this now appears to have been cut from the online show for that date :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight/
One comment in particular will, I believe, require an apology from BBC Newsnight. The segment of the show in which Andrew Montford appeared closed with a question directed to him specifically from the presenter Kirsty Wark, on the subject of Climate Change evidence, to which Andrew Montford replied “we just don’t know”.
Jo, why don’t you state which ‘certain comments made by Andrew Montford’ were inaccurate? How are the BBC supposed to know to which you refer?
Second, when he answered ‘we just don’t know’, what was the question?
When you say ‘There is no debate in Climate Change. There is only one position……’, do you mean that there is no disagreement about detection, attribution, impacts, and even policy response, and adaptation and mitigation? Surely you don’t.
Let me get this straight. You felt compelled to write a lengthy complaint because a BBC report on freak floods didn’t pay sufficient homage to your mania? Crackers.
I wonder how long it will take to dawn on you that as much as it subjugates the eardrums, browbeating zealotry persuades no-one.
Jo,
I have degrees in physics and engineering through DSc (in fluid mechanics and heat transfer). I have extensively read material on global warming issues for over 25 years. I started out accepting there was a problem, and ended out convinced there was not. You are a typical person with just enough background to make you feel you are on top of the issue. I assure you you are not. I can’t say without question there is no problem, but I can say there is not sufficient supporting evidence that there is. In fact, the evidence indicated that we are heading for a cooling period over the next couple of decades, and likely will tend to a much worse cooling period in the longer term, but with ups and downs in between. If you actually listened to the reasonable skeptics (and by the way, if a person is not a skeptic, they are not scientists), and if you had an open mind, you would eventually change your position.
Why don’t the Deniers understand?
We have been telling them for ten years we only have ten years left.
Are the deaf as well as dumb?
Oh dear.
Climate changes, climate has always changed. The question is..
“Is the warming seen over the past (insert desired number of years) out of the ordinary”?
There’s increasing doubt that it isn’t anything out of the ordinary.
You cite melting in the Arctic, now, over what timescale? The kayak expedition by Lewis Pugh in 2008, reached 60 fewer miles further north than an expedition in 1922 (Washington Post, November 1922)
Melting in Greenland, well,need one cite the fact that Vikings had farming communities established in Greenland
As a previous comment noted, you haven’t mentioned the above mean levels of sea ice in the Antarctic.
If we go back a few years, we were regailed with tales of an increased frequency of hurricanes & an increase in their strength. Neither of these have come to pass (See Ryan Maue’s & Prof Pielke Jnr’s work on these areas) Even Al Gore has dropped the slide about hurricane frequency from his presentations.
Have a look at “The Little Ice Age Thermometers” website http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
Many temperature records shown go back to the 1700s,some earlier. Armargh’s is interesting http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/Armagh_Ireland.html
It looks like it’s been warming since the record started in 1796, with general warming from 1796 to ~1860, then a decline until ~1895, increase again until the mid 1950s, decrease to the mid 1960s, then up again (Note the caveats about population growth, ie UHI).
If, as you say “Global Warming has indefinitely, perhaps permanently, postponed the next ice age” ,we should be very, very thankful. It’s cold spells that destroy humanity, shortening growing seasons, causing famines and wars.
Humanity thrived during the Minoan Warm Period, it thrived during the Roman Warm Period, it thrived during the Medieaval Warm Period and it’s thrived during the Modern Warm Period. Look what happened when temperatutes fell after these episodes of warmth.(Source of warm periods, Grootes, P. M. (et al.), ‘Comparison of oxygen isotope records from the GISP2 and GRIP Greenland ice cores’, Nature,366, 1993, pp. 552-4.)
So Ms Abbess, some truth about climate change would be desirable, wouldn’t it!
I’m afraid your knowledge of climate is insufficient for you to make comments such as these. Andrew Montford was absolutely correct when he said we don’t know. The temperature anomaly is incredibly small and any signal is in fact lost in the noise.
The recent statistical paper condemning Michael Mann’s results shows quite clearly that any warming we have experienced in the last twenty years is not statistically significant, nor is it significantly different from previous warming events.
It’s now time for honest debate, not wild guesswork and disingenuous spin.
If the world is indeed in danger then no sane person would argue against the most severe measures to put it right.
As of right now, there is nothing to suggest that is the case, indeed the evidence for manipulation and distortion of the facts by multiple agencies is quite overwhelming.
Complaining to the BBC might have had results in the past, but your bullying techniques are now widely known and disliked.
Believe what you like. Let others enjoy the same privilege.
“Well, Nigel, I studied Physics, and I’ve been reading Climate Change Science on and off for the last 25 years. I don’t claim to know everything, but I am clear about a number of important things, for example the fact of increased Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas emissions causing accumulation in the Atmosphere causing Global Warming. As I say, that’s a fact.”
What nonsense. There isn’t a single paper that has used empirical evidence to show a link between human emissions of CO2 and climate change. In fact, the empirical evidence tends to point the other way. A long time after temperature trends change we expect to see an effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere due to the effect of rising temperature on the solubility of CO2.
In fact, the scientific papers that look at empirical evidence show that changes in solar activity have a much greater effect on temperature change. That is why we had the Holocene Optimum, Minoan Warming, Roman Warming, and Medieval Warm Periods during times when human emissions were immaterial.
Montford’s contribution is great. He has exposed the hockey stick fraud by sticking to the data and methodology that created it. By doing so, he has far more credibility than the so-called ‘climate experts’ that the BBC has been counting on to spread a message not supported by science.
This debate would be very easy to settle. All we need to do is release all of the raw data, metadata, and algorithms that create the temperature profile being shown to the public. Let independent researchers see how that data was collected, adjusted, and processed to get the end product that is being sold to the public as fact. I suggest that if that happened, sausage making would look good in comparison.
Jo you have ‘blown it’ with just one sentence this one…
“The Earth was cooling down until about 1880. That trend was broken by manmade Global Warming and has not been resumed”.
1880 was the tail end of the ‘little ice age’ (LIA)… The LIA followed the ‘Medieval warm period’ (MWP)… and yes it WAS worldwide.
ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED is that the temp. has gone back up to ALMOST where is was before the LIA happened.
If you don’t know this fact you don’t know your stuff… and if you do know, you are being disingenuous to say the kindest. Either way you have blown it…
This is of course is what the book on the Hockystick is about… the MWP and the LIA had to go so that what was left showed we had ‘unprecedented warming …
The climate changes, that’s what is does best..
Sorry to disappoint but a 36 year error in physics means the IPCC’s predictions of future AGW are unsubstantiated. Remember ‘global dimming’ to offset predicted temperatures well above reality? One part, optical scattering by aerosols is proven. The other, greater ‘reflection’ by polluted clouds, has no general experimental proof. Indeed, the reverse has been reported.
Climate science was fooled because the theory, greater optical depth for more, smaller droplets so more ‘reflection’, was apparently verified for thin clouds but breaks down for thick clouds. Also, measured cloud albedos, up to 0.9, are much higher than the predicted <= 0.5 and there's unpredicted directionality. So, there's a second optical effect: I've got some ideas which explain the observations.
No 'polluted cloud cooling' means the IPCC models are wrong, their calibration is wrong, or both. As a physicist, you might be interested in NASA's version of Twomey's [partially correct] theory e.g.: http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sgg/singh/winners4.html 'greater reflection because smaller droplets have higher surface area', plausible but totally fallacious. I wonder why they attempted to change the science?
Jo,
I know you mean well. However, it is plain that you don’t have much scientific awareness, despite having studied some physics in the past. You base your opinions on belief of things you don’t actually understand. You trust that the so-called “consensus” view is correct.
Now, I’ll grant you that we ought, in a perfect world, to be able to trust those designated as “experts”. The *principle* of relying on their word seems reasonable, but that does presuppose that they actually *are* expert.
This is something neither you nor I can easily judge, because we ourselves lack the necessary expertise. The difference between us seems to be that you choose to place unconditional trust in them. On the other hand, and precisely because I don’t possess sufficient expertise to evaluate the scientific claims (though I try to understand as much as I can), I focus on something that I have some hope of evaluating because it relies on a faculty that we all possess to some degree or other. I am speaking of the ability to judge trustworthiness.
Are those promulgating CAGW, or for that matter opposing it, trustworthy? Not in relation to any personal belief or proclivity I might have, but in relation to their behaviour? Although I myself am firmly agnostic about CAGW (in the strict sense that I know I don’t know whether AGW is potentially a serious problem, though it may have *some* effect), I admit to a proclivity for scepticism. I accept need to keep an eye on that lest it become a tendency to dismiss anything a priori, simply because I don’t like it or want it not to be true.
So when it comes to issues such as CAGW, I have to try to exercise as much personal detachment as possible. I have to look at the behaviour of proponents and antagonists and try to evaluate what it tells me about the likelihood of their expressions of certainty being trustworthy. In practice, this involves my asking myself such questions as:
1. Is the person or organisation expressing a certain viewpoint open and transparent (for example, with respect to information, data and methods)?
2. Are they respectful to those holding contrary opinions? Especially those whose level of expertise is of the same order?
3. Are they genuinely prepared to engage with those holding contrary views?
4. Are there any potential conflicts of interest in those promulgating a certain viewpoint?
5. Does their behaviour align with the views they express, or is there any sign of hypocrisy?
6. Do they allow personal views, e.g. in the realms of politics and morality, to influence them?
7. Do they make attempts to suppress dissention?
8. Are such predictions and claims as they make borne out by any evidence that needs only minimal scientific expertise to evaluate?
For what it’s worth, my investigations thus far (and I only became interested in this since Climategate broke; before then, I didn’t really have much cause to question CAGW) have persuaded me that, whilst neither side is lily-white, CAGW proponents and organisations display the more egregious signs of untrustworthiness.
It is they who are driving the issue, who are insisting they are right and that urgent action is needed that could, if they are wrong, result in human misery possibly as bad or worse than that which they are purporting to combat. I do not currently trust them enough to accept the advisability of such action at the present time.
I must say, I take exception to proponents who seek to derogatorily label those who disagree with them, or, like me, who are agnostics with some cause to question. One might say that it only adds to my opinion of them as untrustworthy advocates rather than disinterested parties.
No amount of soap-boxing is going to change those who have doubts. Indeed, the more there is, the more people will be alienated. There is only one way to change them, and that is to take them seriously, engage them with respect, and present incontestable arguments.
Are the arguments of AGW proponents incontestable? Not their beliefs, not their political or moral leanings, but their scientific arguments? People such as you and I can’t determine that, because we lack sufficient expertise. But if those who had more expertise could meet in open forum on a level playing field, observed by us, then we (not to mention they) could make a more accurate judgement.
The very fact that the pro-side seems to be avoiding this as much as possible does not inspire confidence. They could be right, but if so, they aren’t behaving in the way that those who truly know something generally behave. Genuine certainty is rarely exhibited in a strident manner. It is much more usually expressed with equanimity and confidence. In fact, the confidence is what enables the equanimity. (S)he who is certain, and knows it, has no need of shouting, moral pleading, or parroting “facts” of which (s)he has little personal understanding.
Let’s stop shouting. Let’s learn to entertain doubt, not least about our personal proclivities and limitations, and engage with those who have differing opinions. It’s our only hope of approaching nearer the truth, even if that truth is only the recognition of how little we actually know. The truth is whatever it is regardless of how many think like us, or how authoritative we deem them to be. Truth can only ever be ascertained at the level of the individual. Do you, or I, or any of the “experts” actually *know* that CAGW is correct? Seriously, any single one of them, when we don’t even know in detail how clouds affect climate?
Stop believing, Jo. Start knowing what you actually know. Like me, I suspect you’ll find it’s next to nothing. The admission of ignorance, as the sages have perennially said, is the beginning of wisdom.
I wonder, why Jo writes Science and Scientist with a capital S. Looks like mentioning the High Priest or a religion.
When Andrew Montford was asked a question and answered “we just dont know” he set himself apart from say the IPCC who say we are 95% certain about CO2.
If you read the IPCC full reports you find that the margins of error in their understanding of the impact of aerosols, water vapour, clouds, the sun, CO2 and other possible contributors to climate variability are “massive”.
The area of uncertainty extends even to whether they in fact cool or warm the earth.
Mr Montford spoke the truth.
Perhaps unlike Jo, I have a science degree and have worked in the sciences (geology, chemistry, paleoclimatology etc) for over 30 years. Also, perhaps unlike Jo, I listened when my WWII age mother told me to think for myself, not to accept without critical thought what the Learned Men, including politicians, generals and, yes, scientists (with or without a capital “s”), tell me. Private and not-so-private agendas run lives as well as corporations. Science is not so difficult as to be understood by a reasonably educated and questioning “civilian”. Complicated, yes, difficult, no, unless single solutions to multi-variant problems are what one needs. The more I learn, the more uncertainty and variation in the “constants” I find. The simplest, I recently found, is that the amount of energy received by the earth is NOT constant. Trying to figure out the actual amount that we receive on the ground is very difficult. And that is just the start of the situation. The +/- of any equation for heating/cooling on a decadal level appears far greater than the 0.8C*/last 30 years as proposed (which I believe is in positive error by adjustments). How we claim to have a pCO2 correlation in such a mass of variables is beyond me. I suppose hair-splitting is the task of experts. Statisticians, anyway. I’m perplexed that, for such a proposed catastrophic event taking place, we require statisticians and billion dollar computer systems to see it.
Commenters, you are all so wonderfully polite and reasoned – not to say almost gentle – in your treatment of the deluded Ms Abbess.
Sadly, it won’t work. I write this having just read her appallingly ignorant and disrespectful rant at Judith Curry, and I can tell you with great certainty that your kindness will only make her worse. Particularly as it now appears that she has decided to stay off the lithium for a while.
Don’t waste your time.
I would like to address a smalll series of questions to Jo that I hope she will take time to answer.
Jo, you seem to be implying that the Pakistan flooding was somehow an example of weather that is “consistent with Climate Change Science projections”. I hope I understood the point you were making here.
My questions therefore are as follows:
Firstly: Are there ANY weather (or climatic) events which may have happened over the past 1000 years which (if they happened in the next 100 years) you would consider to be INCONSISTENT with Climate Change Science projections going forward?
Secondly: Is there ANY weather (or climatic) event which has happened over the past, say, ten years which you consider to be SO unusual (or rare in a statistical sense) that you consider it to be INCONSISTENT with weather or climate over the past 1000 years?
Because if your answer is negative in each case, then it adds absolutely nothing to the argument to keep affirming that current weather or climatic events remain consistent with Climate Change Science projections going forward. In fact, it must be hard to imagine ANY event that could happen in the next ten years that could be INCONSISTENT with Climate Change Science projections going forward.
I look forward to your reply.
@MatthewPearce
You are being very logical, but I think I need to clarify what I mean by “consistent with Climate Change Science projections”, as it makes your questions somewhat tangential to the argument.
The Science of Climate Change projects that extreme weather events will occur more frequently, and with an increasing ferocity, as there is more energy in the air and ocean systems owing to higher overall temperatures, due to Global Warming, due to humankind’s increased Carbon Dioxide emissions, due to burning Fossil Fuels :-
Allow me to mention a classic well-fought over extreme weather event – the European heatwave in the summer of 2003 :-
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/06/was_the_2003_european_summer_h.php
The land surface temperatures were exceptional, really outside the normal statistical distribution curve.
Besides seeing more hotter events, and less cold events, we are seeing more record hotter events, and less record colder events. The pattern should be clear :-
See also Stott, Stone and Allen (2004) :-
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2004/Human-Contribution-Heatwave2dec04.htm
On what are you basing your graphics? Models? Sure it all looks very convincing, but the models are demonstrably WRONG. It wasn’t long ago Climate Change Alarmists were telling us hurricane intensity was going to increase. Indeed this was one of the shock tactics used by Al Gore in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Well, have they? No, in fact the opposite has occurred. Hurricane activity is now at its lowest level for 30 years!
I also note on the blog you have cited (Scienceblogs), the graphs only date back to 1980. What happens if you go back to, say, 1900? Or what about 1800? Or perhaps 1100? You don’t have the data, do you? So your cause from correlation is simply hypothesis based on ignorance (of the actual mechanisms in play over the medium and longer term).
You may have no trouble pointing to increasing temperatures in the late 20th century. You may have quite some considerable trouble demonstrating that these are unique – and that they didn’t happen, say, 800 years ago or during the Roman Optimum 1,800 years ago.
On the whole I think the entire area is ripe for scepticism and the increasingly shrill tones of people like you, trying to suppress dissent in the media, only serves to increase my suspicions. Personally I applaud the BBC for having the guts to air both sides of the argument, even though they are under immense political pressure from the do-gooders and leftie environmentalists in their own organisation to shut down the debate.
@JerryMead
Are you suggesting that Dr Judith Curry is a manic depressive (with your mention of lithium) ?
The only medication I take is a nice cup of tea from time to time, no sugar, with calcium-based liquid whitening agent.
Jo,
You haven’t absorbed anything that has been written by any of the commenters have you? Try reading Michael Larkin’s comment very slowly and carefully next time you want to stridently repeat “owing to higher overall temperatures, due to Global Warming, due to humankind’s increased Carbon Dioxide emissions, due to burning Fossil Fuels”. Try and act as if you still remember some of that scientific logic that the physics you studied should have taught you.
And can you tell us why you use capital letters for many normal words?
‘The Science of Climate Change projects that extreme weather events will occur more frequently, and with an increasing ferocity, as there is more energy in the air and ocean systems owing to higher overall temperatures, due to Global Warming, due to humankind’s increased Carbon Dioxide emissions, due to burning Fossil Fuels’
OK. That is the projection – and a pretty insubstantial and general one it is too. I note that it is not capable of numeric validation…’more frequently’ doesn’t suggest whether it is 10 x more per year or 1% per century. As a prediction it is hardly better than ‘summer will likely be hotter overall than winter’. And why all the Bloody Capitals? We are in the German Language conversing Not.
But leave that as you will…please supply some evidence that these extreme events are a. occurring more frequently and b. that the only cause for their increase in frequency (if indeed there is such an increase is unequivocally higher overall temperatures.
We can leave discussion of the dubious assertion of ‘due to Global Warming, due to humankind’s increased Carbon Dioxide emissions’ for another time.
I think that your utter belief in AGW clouds your acceptance of the fact that most, if not all, sceptics (or, as you prefer, ‘deniers’) accept that according to the temperature records the mean global temperature has been rising until recently. The problem comes when it is shouted from the pulpit that we are all doomed because these are the highest temperatures ever recorded – EVER!!!
That just does not make any sense.
And shouting about ‘BIG OIL’ funding – who do you think stands to make billions from Cap & Trade??
Try
I have a product that makes me billions now.
I also know, without doubt, that it will run out at some time in the future.
‘Somebody else’ wants me to stop selling the product I already have, and is willing to set up schemes to pay me money to stop or reduce selling my product.
Or consider the alternative.
Catch
I have a product that makes me billions now.
I also know, without doubt, that it will run out at some time in the future.
I go out of business.
But also a h/t to you for allowing all comments thus far 😉
@Jo
You appear to be saying that the the European heatwave in the summer of 2003 was SO unusual in the context of other world weather events that it was not merely “not inconsistent with climate projections” but actually provided evidence of global warming?
That being th case, I think you would agree that the Marble Bar heat wave http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/21/worlds-worst-heatwave-the-marble-bar-heatwave-1923-24/ provides just as much evidence of global warming.
The only trouble (as I am sure you will be quick to appreciate) is that this 1923-24 event undermines the theory that these rare events are only being caused by rising levels of CO2.
And should we all infer that you have been completely unable to identify ANY weather event over the past 1000 years that you would consider to be INCONSISTENT with Climate Change Science projections going forward?
To my mind this simply shows how completely meaningless it is to keep affirming that each and every extreme event is “not inconsistent with Climate Science projections”. At the every least, there must be a better way of saying what you actually mean.
The land surface temperatures were exceptional, really outside the normal statistical distribution curve.
Are you actually aware that we are in an ice age?
I think you should dump the tea and take what the doctor ordered.
@MatthewPearce
The European heatwave of 2003 was one of a series of extreme heating events that have occurred in the last 40 years – too closely spaced to be statistically irrelevant. Plus, it was unusually hot. That means it confirmed the Climate Change projections of more hotter events (increased frequency), and more record hot events (unprecedented).
I know nothing about the heatwave you mention, but it was back in the 1920s. That’s an awfully long time ago. Was there nothing comparable until the heatwaves of the last ten years ?
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/extremeweathersequence_en.html
“…the summer heatwave in Europe in 2003, which was the hottest in continental Europe since at least 1540…”
The last ten years has been hotter than the ten years before that. And that decade was hotter than the previous decade as well.
Extreme events are like the jewels in the crown of evidence – general warming trends accompanied by freak heatwaves is a sure sign of Global Warming.
@Dennis
It will probably come as a surprise to you that I do not agree with the proposals for Cap and Trade. Nor do I agree with the moves for a Carbon Tax. I don’t think that these or similar schemes can make the kind of changes that we need.
Injecting more money into the energy system without making sure that the money gets used on new, efficient, low Carbon energy technologies will fail to “incentivise” change. Money flows like water and finds the lowest possible places to lie – losing its stimulus to effect widescale change.
What is needed is strong legislation on the shape of the future energy supply.
As for temperatures – they’ve been going up recently – and I don’t just mean because it’s Northern Summer. Check this out and see if you can spot the trend with the naked eye :-
@LatimerAlder
http://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html
Oh dear.
‘As for temperatures – they’ve been going up recently – and I don’t just mean because it’s Northern Summer. Check this out and see if you can spot the trend with the naked eye :-‘
Whilst I appreciate your response, the patronisation that comes with it is not wholly welcome.
Could you please extend the graph to ‘recently’?
You are responding with a graph that does not relate to the comment I made.
And yes, I am surprised that you are not in favour of cap and trade. Forgive my assumption.
You favour ‘strong legislation’? For whom and for what?
And why do you not think that C&T will help?
I don’t want to sail under false colours here, you know my scepticism, but I really would like your thoughts.
Dennis
The graph of All disasters is not immediatly apparent when following the given link. However the graphs begin in 1900!
Would you like to consider the likelyhood of remote parts of the world being able to report natural disasters in 1900?
@Dennis,
It’s unfortunate that you think I’m behaving in a patronising manner. I thought I was being rather educational.
The graphs extend right up to last month in 2010. So yes, the temperatures are still going up !
My view is that the Oil and Gas and Coal companies are holding out for a universal “bailout” to pay for their conversion to Renewable Energy.
Many people, organisations, pension funds and major institutional investors hold massive stock in Oil and Gas and Coal, which is why nobody’s even moving an inch from using Fossil Fuels at the moment. BP only invests 5% capex per year in Renewables (correct me if I’m still quoting last year’s figure and it’s changed now). Minuscule.
To do the conversion to Low Carbon Energy, the Oil and Gas and Coal companies do need to invest their own capital in making changes – with all the major economies in huge debt, who else has the capacity to finance change but those who make large profits ? I am not willing to accept the idea of public money being spent on private companies to create a “stimulus” for the change to green energy.
What needs to happen, in my view, is that the Oil and Gas and Coal companies accept that they need to pay for their own de-Carbonisation, and tell their shareholders to forget dividends for a couple of years until Renewable Energy investments start to pay off.
A recession is a great time to do this, as the return on savings is almost universally rock-bottom at present, so most people will not feel the change.
Cap and Trade, as evidenced in Europe, results in too many Carbon permits being given away to the polluters, or creates a scenario where the price of Carbon credits drops away because the only people buying are the same small group of high polluters. The theory is that Cap and Trade will give Carbon a high price, which should “disincentivise” Carbon Emissions. But the companies producing and using Fossil Fuels are locked in to using them, and the Carbon price will not provide a high enough threshold to stimulate change. Cap and Trade, much like vanilla taxation will merely make everything more expensive for ordinary consumers.
@Dung
You raise a very valid question…
There is a lot of data gathering, that originally started with the insurance companies, and got taken up by the newspapers, who always like to report on disasters.
Although the number of people reported as being killed by natural disasters has consistently fallen over the time since 1900, the scale of the disasters has increased :-
This rules out the idea that there is poor reporting in some places in earlier years, to my mind. My reasoning is that if remote parts of the world were not reporting as well as other parts, then the count of those killed would have started quite low and risen – but it does not.