The Royal Statistical Society publishes a truly readable magazine called “Significance”, and until today I hadn’t realised it’s available online.
The front cover of the March 2010 Volume 7 Issue 1 edition shows an artist’s mock-up of severe drought and the headline question is “After Copenhagen : What can be done ?”
NASA put you on the Moon, and they’ve been listening very carefully to their pinging satellites and they’re warning you about Climate Change. Are you going to listen to the clever Space guys and gals ?
https://www.youtube.com/user/ClimateHitsHome
I invite you to open your mind to the possibility that the “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States Report” is not based on political ideology but fairly conservative projections :-
https://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts
I still cannot get my head around exactly why we need a House of Commons Inquiry into the “goings-on” at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).
It’s not as if Professor Phil Jones has done anything wrong. In fact, he’s been behaving like any other productive and fruitful researcher, getting on with the work and trying to brush off unhelpful distractions, including a deliberate smear campaign.
OK, so he wrote a few contentious e-mails, using casual language and a frustrated tone. This was not Science, and should not be considered representative of his work. Take a look at his work, results of painstaking and in-depth analysis of raw data :-
I was going to entitle this little web log post “Yet More Proof Journalists Can’t Read” but I thought that might seem a little too rude, and anyway, I wanted to be clear about the subject of the content of the post in the title, so I changed it.
I have just received an e-mail from Jonathan Leake of the Times of London and the Sunday Times. By order of his e-mail signature, I am not permitted to share entirely the contents of that e-mail with you, however, I can relate to you that it concerns the latest Climate Change “sceptic” bunkum story, to which you can find extensive reference plastered all over the Internet like some ugly, testosterone-fuelled teenage graffiti :-
https://news.oneindia.in/2010/03/12/amazonrain-forests-were-unaffected-from-once-in-a-centuryd.html
“Amazon rain forests were unaffected from once-in-a-century drought in 2005 : Friday, March 12, 2010”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311175039.htm
“New Study Debunks Myths About Vulnerability of Amazon Rain Forests to Drought : ScienceDaily (Mar. 12, 2010)”
I first commented on the suspected link between the Institute of Physics and the noted Climate Change “sceptic” Piers Corbyn in a previous post :-
https://www.joabbess.com/2010/03/02/fred-pearce-still-crucifying-phil-jones/
One of my commentators challenged what I had written, so I edited it out, awaiting the opportunity to discover more.
More has now been uncovered; not my me, I hasten to add, but by another commentator :-
https://www.joabbess.com/2010/03/06/institute-of-physics-nosedive/#comment-600
When are the Media going to get their own School of the Environment, where all the journalists can come and learn the Science of Climate Change ?
The Times of London continues to mangle the facts, it seems to me; this time from the pen/fingers of Ben Webster, perhaps a Mini-Me version of that accreditable journalist Jonathan Leake :-
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7056173.ece
“[The IPCC]…also claimed that global warming could cut rain-fed North African crop production by up to 50 per cent by 2020. A senior IPCC contributor has since admitted that there is no evidence to support this claim…”
I don’t think that quite pins it down accurately.
Some bad ideas just won’t die.
Here’s Skeptical Science’s regularly updated list of the hottest and battiest Climate Change “sceptic” arguments :-
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
And here’s the full, and updateable list of nearly 250 “sceptical” arguments that have been weighed in the balance and found erroneously wanting :-
https://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php
Why do these arguments keep coming back from the grave with their great big evil green zombie eyes and their matted, bird’s nest zombie hair and their outstretched murderous arms ?
Who is promoting and protecting these vampire lies ?
Who are the stinking, rotting funders of disinformation on Climate Change ?
I think we should find out, and ask them to stop.
Ed Miliband put on his favourite suit, shirt and cufflinks today and ruminated at the Environmental Audit Committee in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom Parliament (all you Americans can stop reading now : none of what follows will concern you) :-
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=6084
One of his many views was that there should be a more permanent nature to the ongoing international Climate Change negotiations, and I entirely agree.
Ed Miliband said he didn’t think that there should be a “repeat” of what happened at the Copenhagen UNFCCC conference in December 2009. I also agree with that.
Goodness gracious me ! I find myself in agreement with Ed Miliband !
I really love China. It’s a country with noble ambitions, to protect and prosper its people, and to advance its economic development through trade across the world.
The rest of the world love China, too. They have outsourced all their manufacture, and other services such as recycling, to the powerhouse that is China, where the labour is cheap and the people work willingly.
Imagine there’s no Medicine; no doctors, nurses, hospitals, surgeons, ward administrators, paramedics on bicycles in bright yellow and green jackets, ambulances, medical technology or pharmaceuticals. It’s not easy, even if you try. What would your life be like ? Pretty painful and quite possibly nastily shortened, I’d hazard.
There are people in the world who still do not have access to medical care (let’s think…all those Americans without basic health care insurance), so they know the grim realities of it all – but the reason I’m considering this is there could have been a point in human history where the development of Medicine was thwarted by sceptics and people with ulterior motives.
“You’re sick because you’ve sinned”, a portion of humanity used to believe; the wealthy throughout history have sometimes been keen for disease to wipe out the scum of the poor. Appeals to Nature and to God to explain sickness and accidental damage could have been followed by a refusal to care for or treat people – as it was not what the Laws of the Universe dictated.
Like several commentators, I am picking out a trend in Internet communications that indicates that there is a tribe of “doubt believers” out there, proselytising for their cause : bringing down the Science of Climate Change.
These evangelists often write and reply to web posts with statements of alarmingly high confidence levels, assuming authority they cannot possibly claim, sometimes using anonymity to cloak their network connections.
Earth Hour 2010 will be on Saturday 27 March 2010 20:30 8.30pm everywhere
Being involved in a collective effort may yet help the human race overcome its problem with excessive emissions.
It will look like the United Nations’ Climate Change Conferences, yet it will be an standing session, not just one fortnight a year. And it will be distributed over the entire world, not just in one location. And it will involve a whole lot more people than just official national delegates.
Help start the process by taking part in a token gesture of support for a cleaner, greener, cooler Earth : switch everything off for an hour on Saturday 27 March 2010, starting at 8.30pm 20:30 where you are, in your time zone :-
Remember, small gestures can be significant, momentous, even spiritual, if everybody gets involved.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2010&month=2&submitted=Get+Report
Two pieces of Global Warming evidence : it’s been rather cold in the USA of late…but then it’s been rather warm (and wet) in Australia :-
https://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/25600/record-heat-and-flooding-for-a.asp
“Record Heat and Flooding for Australia : Mar 3, 2010 : Perth, Australia, has experienced one of its hottest and driest [Southern Hemisphere, lasting from December to February] summers on record. Since November, temperatures have averaged nearly 5 degrees F (3 degrees C) above normal. The latest in a series of heat waves began on Feb. 25 and has persisted through Monday. High temperatures were no lower than 98 degrees F (36.4 degrees C) and has been as hot as 107 degrees F (41.5 degrees C) during this period…”
And do you see an analysis of this in the American and British Press ? No. You get continual jokes about “Snowmageddon”. Gaps in the evidence like this in the Media are preventing the ordinary citizens from appreciating the scale of the problems we potentially face.
Poor (middle-aged) old George Monbiot ! He really feels like he’s been wasting his time trying to get through to people to communicate about Climate Change :-
https://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/03/08/the-unpersuadables/
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/mar/08/belief-in-climate-change-science
I don’t think that he should despair. What the ordinary, Tabloid-reading , Daily Telegraph-reading, Times of London-reading or even Guardian-reading man-or-woman-in-the-street thinks about Climate Change Science doesn’t really matter in the end, as long as the policymakers know the direction of travel required. That is, towards strong regulation on Carbon Emissions.
And anyway, I think that the problem of Climate Change “doubt” can be resolved relatively easily – by educating those who work in the Media.
Let me begin my argument by asking a question : is it right and fair and balanced to pitch Dr Benny Peiser against Professor Phil Jones on the subject of the Science of Global Warming ?
I ask this, because this is effectively what happened during the hearings of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on 1st March 2010, when Dr Benny Peiser and Lord Nigel Lawson were first in the seats, and then Professor Phil Jones and Professor Edward Acton sat in the seats later on :-
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/uc387-i/uc38702.htm
https://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/naomi_oreskes_on_merchants_of.php
Please do watch Naomi Oreske’s magristral (not “magisterial”, since she’s female) presentation on her new publication “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming” in the YouTube above.
The presentation is somewhat marred by poor audiovisual capture, but it’s fascinating, all the same, and good to hear her logical argumentation; and be reminded of what has been happening for the last 50 years in the public “debates” on Science.
The Media have still not gotten to grips with what Science actually is, and how to present it, and how to research it, and often end up interviewing and reporting people who are either not expert in the field they are asked about, or have an underlying agenda for misinformation being published.
Just when you thought it was safe to read The Guardian again, they only go and publish an opinion piece by none other than Roger A. Pielke Jr, justly famed for Climate Change scepticism :-
https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/04/ipcc-major-change-needed
“Major change is needed if the IPCC hopes to survive : Well before the recent controversies, the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was marred by an unwillingness to listen to dissenting points of view, an inadequate system for dealing with errors, conflicts of interest, and political advocacy. The latest allegations of inaccuracies should be an impetus for sweeping reform : Roger A Pielke Jr : guardian.co.uk, Thursday 4 March 2010 10.58 GMT : It has been a rough couple of months for the climate science community. Last November someone stole or released over 1,000 e-mails from the University of East Anglia. The e-mails revealed that some scientists were so entrenched in battle with their scientific and political opponents that they lost their perspective, going so far as to suggest improperly influencing the scientific process of peer review and evading legal requirements to disclose their data upon request. Climate science took another hit soon thereafter when it became apparent that the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained a number of embarrassing errors and an unacceptable amount of sloppy work, such as its erroneous prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, rather than in several centuries or more. The IPCC’s handling of the allegations of errors have compounded its problems…”
I think somebody should take James Delingpole quietly to one side and have a little word in his ear about the ineptitude of recycling silly stories :-
“What Dave and his chum Barack don’t want you to know about green jobs and green energy : By James Delingpole Politics : March 6th, 2010 : Green jobs are a waste of space, a waste of money, a lie, a chimera. You know that. I know that. We’re familiar with the report by Dr Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of the Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain which shows that for every “green job” that is created another 2.2 jobs are LOST in the real economy…”
Here Mr Delingpole, you are on the shakiest of grounds from my point of view. Your writing suggests that in the field of Energy Engineering you have even less knowledge about the technological and economic data than you do about Climate Change Science, and what you have acquired is apparently deeply misinformed. With only the briefest of Google searches, you could have discovered what the Huffington Post uncovered on 2nd May 2009 :-
Not content with apparently intentionally polluting the minds of British thinkers with Climate Change scepticism that appears to be of the most vituperous kind, Christopher Booker now turns his money-raking skills to Canada, with a syndicated column in the Vancouver Sun, that reads like outright propaganda to me. To help evaluate its content, please keep in mind that his article is not written by a scientist, nor does it express the position of the current science :-
https://www.vancouversun.com/global+warming+alarmists/2649497/story.html
“The global warming alarmists : Glacial melting, rainforest and crop failures, extreme weather, rising seas: ‘Isolated’ events that together comprise the ‘warmist’ message : BY CHRISTOPHER BOOKER, DAILY TELEGRAPH MARCH 5, 2010 : Although North America and Europe have been slammed by the worst winter in decades, the global-warming storm has hit a lull, and the alarms that have been raised by ‘warmists’ are based on scare stories from environmental activists, Christopher Booker writes. The news from sunny Bali that there is to be an international investigation into the conduct of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri would have made front-page headlines a few weeks back. But while Scotland and North America are still swept by blizzards, in their worst winter for decades, there has been something of a lull in the global warming storm — after three months when the IPCC and Dr. Pachauri were themselves battered by almost daily blizzards of new scandals and revelations. And one reason for this lull is that the real message of all the scandals has been lost. The chief defence offered by the warmists to all those revelations centred on the IPCC’s last 2007 report is that there were only a few marginal mistakes scattered through a vast, 3,000-page document. Okay, they say, it might have been wrong to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent, that sea levels were rising dangerously and that hurricanes, droughts and other “extreme weather events” were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report; behind them the mighty edifice of global warming orthodoxy remains unscathed. The “science is settled,” the “consensus” is intact. But this completely misses the point. Put the errors together and it can be seen that one after another they tick off all the central, iconic issues of the entire global warming saga. Apart from those non-vanishing polar bears, no fears of climate change have been played on more insistently than these: the destruction of Himalayan glaciers and Amazonian rainforest; famine in Africa; fast-rising sea levels; the threat of hurricanes, droughts, floods and heat waves all becoming more frequent…”
This piece is riddled with easily refuted inaccuracies. Why did they print it ? Why did they pay for it ? Who received the money ?
There really is only one thing to say to this nonsense : O Canada !
Is the Institute of Physics “prestigious” ?
Well, of course, they are highly honoured, and have prestige, but I’m talking about the other meaning, of a sense of cunning, that lingers on in the French word for conjurer or magician : prestidigitateur : the speed of thinking gives capacity to move the fingers almost undetectably to create an illusion.
Several commentators have remarked on the similarity between the Institute of Physics submission to the Science and Technology Committee on “Climategate” and the arguments of several noted Climate Change sceptics.
The fact that James Delingpole loved it up should have been a clue to all the bug hunters out there that all was not well with the submission from the IoP :-
If you can imagine the engine for new, renewable and sustainable Energy systems as a train which should by now be thundering down the tracks, get this : it left the depot only to get stuck in the sidings.
Enough of the locomotive metaphors, already. On to the analysis. Here’s an excerpt from Catherine Mitchell’s fine book “The Political Economy of Sustainable Energy” (2008, 2010) :-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00r9x9n/The_Daily_Politics_04_03_2010/
James, James, yet again you betray your apparent lack of comprehension about Science, the way it works, the things it says, the truth it holds. Your accusations are in my opinion completely unfounded, baseless. It seems your inquiring mind has been corrupted by the Climate Obstructers’ continual rant of denial after denial.
Here’s a challenge : read up about the “time lag”, the “warming inertia” in the Climate system, and then come back with an alternative scenario that other people can accept, with facts, figures and falsifications of mainstream opinion. I’m sure your employer could come up with the funds to buy the research papers you need to read to come to an well-informed view. Alternatively, you could try e-mailing the authors for gratis copies of their work. If you show yourself a genuine student of Science, I’m sure people will share their data and research with you freely :-
If you have any doubt that Science is under assault from the Climate Change Obstructers (self-styled “sceptics”), you need look no further than this piece of what I consider to be utter, utter, fetid 30-day-old left-in-the-sun tripe :-
https://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/04/global-warming-flaks-reduced-t
The number of outright inaccuracies in the piece is astonishing, including the switch on what Phil Jones really claimed about “statistically significant” global warming.
And it concludes with clear evidence of a globally organised campaign to bring down Climate Change Science, by hook or by crook :-
“There is vastly more material here than you will ever be able to absorb. I realized as I ploughed my way through it, or some of it, that the conclusion is encouraging. I am confident now that the official version is going to be overwhelmed, and that the mainstream media reporters are going to be overwhelmed, too. They are right now facing their own Tsunami of dissent. Politicians know very well what is happening, and cap and trade will not pass the U.S. Senate.”
“Coverage at such warm-supporting organs as the Washington Post and the New York Times has been reduced to a strategy of denial. They have been forced to deny that that there is any problem with the official story beyond what the climate officials themselves admit (and they admit very little — little more than typos).”
“But it doesn’t matter. The web has made all the difference and the reporters working to uphold the official version have more and more been forced into a defensive crouch. The exposure of this massive fraud will be a watershed in the history of environmentalism and it will continue to unfold whatever the mainstream media think or say.”
We have a (non-violent) fight on our hands, not of our own choosing : keep telling the truth, and insisting on correcting falsehoods; or face an uphill ramp of complications and delays.
The Climate Change Science Obstructers, or “the obstructers”, who style themselves as “sceptics” (or “skeptics” if you are in other climes than the UK of GB and NI), love throwing any muck they can find, hoping that any little drab will stick.
Unfortunately, this does sometimes result in the breaching of semantic spaces, and false meanings can occur. Sadly, this seems to happen most often in the minds of journalists, who then write up the mistakes and publish them abroad widely.
Here is an example from a usually faithful reporter :-
“‘Climategate’ professor admits to withholding information : The professor at the centre of the ‘climategate’ row, has admitted sending ‘some pretty awful’ emails refusing to send information on to other scientists. : By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent : Published: 02 Mar 2010”
Dear Louise, I’ll have to interject right here : Phil Jones did not admit he refused to send data to other scientists.
Phil Jones explained that is is not “standard procedure” to include all the data in every research paper when it is published. That’s not the same as saying he “refused” to.
Breaking News : a “true science” Internet search engine that you can trust to give you the facts on Climate Change.
In the first stages of development, the new tool, which can help you exclude Climate Change scepticism from your Internet searches, is available online here :-
Yes, it’s powered by Google, but that’s great.
If you find any Climate Change denier-sceptic web articles in the results, do let me know, and I can inform the search engine designers to improve the filtering.