Admiral_Bobski

November 25, 2006

PS - Apologies to Mr Sleet for hijacking his thread...

C-Bob

November 24, 2006

I've had a scan through the link (I'll have a thorough read-through later on), and what Hansen says seems quite reasonable. The graph that has been questioned obviously needs to be considered in its entirety, and not one line at a time (or one line and ignore the others, as seems to have been the case in the past).

To give Monckton a little credit, though, he didn't take one line and dismiss the others - what he did was to take all three lines to calculate an average (or so he says in his notes). Whether this was a right or wrong thing to do I am not sure - it depends upon specifically how the graph was constructed which, it appears, is answered in the link you gave me. If the three graphs relate to three different models then the averaging may not be legitimate. If the three graphs are the same model with different forcing levels (which I think it is - I'll have to check) then, again, it may not be legitimate. In fact, the only case in which an averaging could be considered legitimate with no question at all would be if the three graphs all came from the same model, running the same data and showing a chaotic outcome due to perturbations in the model. More research needed on my part, I think :lol:

Anyway, I think we do both feel the same way about scientific papers (but perhaps have differing views on which papers can be "trusted" ). Hopefully we can both be rational and avoid a heated debate - the fact that "alarmists" and "denialists" get so heated is what has caused the debate to become so cloudy! Staying calm and analysing the facts are the way forward

Well, I've finished my coffee so I'd better get back on with things - I'll see if I can find any facts to analyse later on!

Cheers

C-Bob

November 24, 2006

EA

I see where you're coming from (and appreciate your honesty!). It is true that some "dodgy or disproven science" is funded by oil companies, but that doesn't mean that all information coming from sources with links to the oil industry (or any industry with a vested interest) is false or distorted. Similarly not all "Pro-GW" information is false or distorted but, conversely, that doesn't mean that some of it is.

For a slight aside, I found a posting on another site about secondary smoking. An excellent response, I thought, that draws parallels with the AGW debate. I have italicised the pertinent comment below, but kept the post in its entirety so that you can see the context in which it was stated.

I think it is important that I explain that I am a Motel owner with a pub. I am a life long non smoker, my father died of a smoking related illness and my personal view is that smokers play Russian Roulette with their lives.
I have read lots of science over the last 2 years in my roll as The Secretary of a region of the British Institute of Innkeeping who support the voluntary charter on smoking in public places. I do not claim to be a scientist and having reviewed and hopefully understood the evidence, such as it is I have to say that the case put for ETS as a causal link to serious ill health is in my view non existant or at best scant. There are lots of 'smoke screens' erected such as the claim that the evaluation of the 39 year study was tobacco industry sponsored. As I understand it it was in the latter stages when health funding was stopped, when the results were not looking good for the Anti faction that sponsorship was sought and accepted.I think it is also slightly disengenuos to always intimate that science is flawed due to the sponsor. If that were the case then surely it is reasonable to criticise the WHO for acceptong funding for research and no smoking campaigns from the Phaumaceitical Industry who make many millions from anti smoking medicines.

Obviously in a medical journal my views can be dismissed as irrelevant and I accept that, but I would like to finally say that to abuse science who ever is the culprit does a disservice to a nobel profession. What I have read of ETS science I have to conclude that the 'anti's' seem to be well ahead in this regard.

I agree with you for the most part, though - as I suggested a while back, the sooner we get rid of the "denialists" and the "alarmists", the sooner there can be a rational, objective debate about AGW. I'm going to start a campaign, one day - the "Bring Back Objectivity to Science" campaign (BriBOtS for short)!

Until next time...

C-Bob

PS - thanks for the link - I'll check it out later

November 24, 2006

You're definitely not the only one with objections.As a practising scientist myself, I have seen how individual scientists get personal with their own data and simply refuse to believe it is flawed.

Thanks Mr Sleet! I often find myself wondering when the Scientific Method was ditched in favour of subjectivity and personal bias. I can only find myself agreeing with Michael Crichton when he talks about introducing "double-blind" experimentation in climate science (and, in fact, all sciences).

I shall remain skeptical until the objectivity returns to these studies

C-Bob

November 24, 2006

Thanks for your reply! I knew from reading the exchange with P3 you were under pain of death (or worse) for spending too much time on here so the risks you take stand you in good stead!

Got the day off today, so time for a quick post!

I'm afraid the Milloy site is a site that was set up to discredit the reports from the Tobacco industry...

Similarly, the Realclimate site was set up to "prove" that global warming was real, imminent and potentially catastrophic. I'm not necessarily defending JunkScience and the like, but I'm saying (rather unclearly myself

) that Realclimate should be taken with a similarly-sized grain of salt.

As for Monckton's calculations, I post on another site with an atmospheric physicist.

I'd be interested to hear what he has to say, if you have a link. I'm not suggesting that Monckton has all of his facts correct, but he does bring some interesting points to the fray and seems to be quite capable of defending himself! As for the misquotation of Hansen, when I have time I will look into that further - some websites say that he was misquoted while others say that Monckton's quotation was legitimate. If you have a link to a copy of Hansen's article I'd be very grateful. (With any luck, though, it's only a Google away!)

Don't understand your comments about the second piece, I rather unclearly was arguing that they were one document? Never mind it is not important.

Sorry about that - my bad! I misunderstood what you were saying However, whether it has been discredited or not depends largely on who you ask - Realclimate ripped it apart, but their objections have (almost) all been addressed by Monckton in his correspondance pdf. I shall see if I can dig out some references, but several scientists are basically agreeing with what he says (not necessarily in the details, but the broad objections he raises).

Anyway, as always there is plenty more research for me to do It's nice to have you here, EA - I apologise if my first post was a little on the aggressive side!

TTFN

C-Bob

November 23, 2006

Hi - I've said in another thread that I'm not going to be posting much at the moment (for fear of annoying the wife, but she's out with friends tonight, so...while the cat's away, the mice will play...!), but I thought I'd just throw in a comment or two if you'll permit me! :lol:

I have a wonder about why Mr Monckton invested so much time in this from the outset. Are we to believe that he was so motivated by the perceived injustice ongoing on the Climate Change reportage he felt he ought put the record straight? Or did he pitch the idea first, or even be commissioned to write the article, in which case I suggest that the outcome was preordained. I would contend you simply do not commission a journalist with no science background to prove one way or other an argument such as this.

It's worthwhile reading through all of the pdfs associated with the article, and not relying on the article by itself. He mentions several times throughout the various attachments that he began researching the climate change debate when he discovered that the hockey-stick graph had been "debunked" but was still in use by the IPCC. He was not commissioned to write the article, but rather submitted it for publication once his analysis was complete - the fact that its release coincided with the publication of the Stern Report is neither here nor there. Perhaps it was coincidence, perhaps the Telegraph themselves held back publication until the Stern Report was out, perhaps he even rushed it out to coincide with the report himself, who knows?

As far as his second piece is concerned, as it is intrinsically linked to the first article and given that it is widely discredited I'm afraid that I don't see that it should be taken seriously though I accept your stance on it.

By "his second piece", are you referring to the second part of the article, which was published a week later? If so, he essentially ended the first piece by saying "To Be Continued", and the two articles are really one article that has been cut in half (if you hook 'em with the first article then you get great sales next week for the concluding part). As for the article's being "widely discredited", I found that Realclimate savaged the article (as can be expected, seeing as they are run by Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann and his cronies), then many others followed suit using, basically, Realclimate's arguments. However, if you read through the e-mails pdf (rather than just "scanning"), you will see that he addresses and, for the most part, overturns these objections. It is also worth reading his response to Al Gore's comments on the original article:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

Interestingly the web site he lists his favourite has received some funding from Exxon, is thought to be funded by another carbon crunching conglomerate and his findings were apparently independantly also found by Steve Milloy's Junk Science. Big coincidence, and one i am really suspicious of.

I don't see any reason why these sites should rouse any more suspicion than Realclimate.

Incidentally I have developed (as you may see) a largely cynical approach to all articles on this subject , trusting no one who has something to sell. I hope you don't object too much to my expressing my concerns here.

I, too, have a largely cynical approach to the subject as, apparently, does Christopher Monckton. No objection to you expressing your concerns, I just feel that Monckton should be given more credit and more time. The pdfs take a while to plow through, but are really worth the effort. The pdf of e-mails he received is over 70 pages long and consists of all the responses he had received up to that point. The e-mails were not "cherry-picked" to show Monckton in a good light and, in fact, he received several quite abrupt rebuttals (each of which he replied to and, as I said earlier, for the most part dismissed).

Sorry for the long post, but I feel that Monckton has been attacked quite unfairly, if not unexpectedly! :lol:

TTFN

C-Bob

November 22, 2006

Hi P3, Capn Bobski
P3, you will recall that I also found the attitude on RealClimate patronising, rude and aggressive so Capn B is not alone. Indeed I would liken their attitude to that of the Jehovahs Witness "we have the only true word of God, all else is devil worship."

If they are so convinced of their position, why do they feel the need to defend it so vigourously every time it is questioned? Is their position so weak that it cannot withstand debate?

I shall try not to get myself drawn back into the debate (for fear of incurring the wrath of my beloved wife!), but thanks for that Viking - it's nice to know that I'm not alone in my views on Realclimate. I have to confess that my dislike of RC began with the patronising remarks (such as when, in response to a reply by Roger Pielke, they said that they felt he had "misunderstood" the information he had studied). However, my true understanding of the depth of their bias came when I discovered that their core group of scientists was Michael Mann (of "highly contentious Hockey Stick graph" fame, as I'm sure you know) and his cohorts. Considering the suspicion with which that graph is regarded, surely the website itself should be regarded with similar suspicion?

And before anyone says it, yes I know that the IPCC cleared the graph of all charges against it. However, I contend that this casts the IPCC in a suspicious light, too. Considering these people are pretty much calling the shots as far as the "World Understanding" of climate change goes, I find this more than a little unsettling.

Furthermore, I applaud Christopher Monckton for his article in the Daily Telegraph, and suggest that anyone with an interest in the subject (and a fair amount of stamina!) downloads and reads both his 40+ pages of notes and the 70+ pages of e-mail correspondence, the latter of which addresses all of the issues raised by naysayers of his article.

Maybe that last paragraph should have been in the relevant thread, but I believe in cross-pollination of topics!

Anyway, I shall stop there for now. Just glad to know I'm not the only one with objections.

TTFN

C-Bob

November 19, 2006

Thanks for the reply P3 B)

I will try to continue looking into the debate - it is clear that reading a bit, then posting, then reading a bit more, then posting a bit more is starting to confuse things. Every time I read one thing it makes reference to another, and when trying to clarify any one issue I find myself being distracted by others. Spreading myself a little too thin, methinks

Before I leave (for now) I'll just clear up one thing - when I talk about "trusting" scientists, I do not mean to imply that the scientists themselves are not trustworthy. I am suggesting that the science they present is not trustworthy due to their (probably subconscious) bias. The scientists themselves are more than likely completely oblivious to their bias, or the way their bias affects their work. This is why it is important to have independent groups dealing with a single paper - one group proposes a theory, another group constructs and runs the model/experiment, another group analyses the results. The groups should have no contact with one another and, preferably, no relationship with one another. This is a proven method for eliminating bias in scientific experiments, and it is not used in climate sciences.

Anyway, on that final note I shall go. Perhaps I shall return armed to the teeth! Or perhaps not. But I'll keep an eye on the forums and, if I feel I have anything to add, I shall put my oar back in!

Thanks for the debate, P3

Until next time!

C-Bob

November 18, 2006

Well, P3, I've checked the link to Realclimate's take on State of Fear. Boy, they don't like him much, do they? I would recommend scanning the responses for a couple of notes from "Benton Maples" who, despite being savaged later on, makes the very valid point that the quotes Realclimate uses in their critique are distorted or out of context. Michael Crichton twists facts? Well, so do Realclimate on the basis of this, and other, articles.

In fact, the more of Realclimate I read, the more I am inclined away from their "side of the fence". They still support the hockey stick graph of Mann, and claim that Mann accepts the MWP...but if he does then why isn't it in the graph?! (Ah, but the Mann graph has been vindicated! By whom? By the IPCC! .....oh....) I am also astonished at how vehemently they defend their position every time a "threat" comes along to undermine them. Many of their replies to comments are patronising, or just downright rude. I find it hard to accept their viewpoint when they are quite obviously trying to browbeat people into accepting their case.

Crichton's points on the politicisation of science, and his views on "Consensus Science" are valid and worrying. Science should be objective (though one article I read claimed, in defence of GW, that it is not possible to be objective in climate science... Why not?). As soon as prejudices, biases and "beliefs" come into scientific analysis, science goes out the window. There's a reason scientists are regarded as being boring, nerdy, dispassionate people - it's because they should approach their work in that way. Passions distort facts, and the AGW people seem to be the most passionate people I've ever heard.

I may have to bow out of this debate now, as we really are just running around in circles. I cannot accept that certain fundamental aspects of GW are as well understood as is claimed, and no amount of debate from me is going to convince you otherwise. I'm not trying to convince people that GW isn't happening - but I find that there are very few scientists in the debate who can be trusted. Sorting through the vast swathes of papers really isn't helping matters - for every paper that says one thing there's always at least one other that refutes it.

I am tired of chasing my own tail, and my wife is calling herself a "Netweather Widow". Time to drop out. Maybe I'll drop back in some time...

B)

C-Bob

November 18, 2006

Hi P3 - I'm having a little trouble here. First off, Coby Beck says "...this wonderful archive of climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause while also revealing it can be an effect..." What is this statement based on, precisely? The fact that CO2 and temperature rose hand in hand after the initial temperature increase can quite equally be applied to the principle that temperature increase causes CO2 to rise. And, since the temperature started to increase first, this is a perfectly rational explanation for the fact that they rose together thereafter. There is no need to invoke the concept that "CO2 then causes temperature to increase" to explain the graph. To my mind this seems to be a totally arbitrary attribution of cause and effect (but one that neatly fits the AGW theory...).

On Michael Crighton: I've tried to avoid direct commentary on the book, because I haven't read it. Instead, my comments have tried to reflect the discussions of it on website and blogs relating to CC and climate science. Note that Crighton (a writer, not a scientist) was asked to testify by Senator James Inhofe, one of the best known (and least popular) anit-AGW political figures in the Bush administration. My personal inclination is to value the work of the people at the coal-face, the scientists, over the work of either politicians or writers; for this reason, I think we should treat Crighton's contribution to understanding of the climate and GW with some degree of caution.

Okay, well I highly recommend reading the book. Why? Because it is well researched, well presented and it faces some legitimate issues in a legitimate way. How can you make comments based on the opinions of bloggers without reading the source material first? How do you know that their interpretation of the book is accurate? How do you know that you won't read the book differenly from them?

Also, I'm terribly sorry but I didn't realise you couldn't be a writer and a scientist at the same time. Crichton has a degree in medicine which, to the best of my knowledge, is a scientific degree. Therefore, by definition, he is a scientist. He researches every book he writes exhaustively, and he conducts his research in a scientific manner, by analysing all the facts, sorting out inconsistencies, determining what is accurate and what is not and seeing where different theories overlap. Seems pretty scientific to me. The fact that he doesn't hold a post at a University or some think-tank at the forefront of research is neither here nor there.

Read the speeches! It doesn't matter who asked him to give the speech - read what he said in the speech. You seem to be under the impression that Crichton dismisses GW out of hand. This is not true - he believes that there is some global warming occurring, and that some of the observed GW is caused by human activity. His point is about how "environmental sciences" are conducted, and the flaws inherent in the nature of the research.

You say we should treat Crichton's contribution with caution. Why? What makes his contribution any less valid than any climate scientist's contribution? He didn't just make stuff up for the book - every fact stated in the book is taken from scientific research. The story is fiction, yes, but the facts are facts

We are, actually, in quite a good position to say, with some confidence, that there is unlikely to be an ice age, or even the beginnings of one, for at least 10,000 years, and more probably about 50,000 years.

How good a position, since we really don't know what triggers ice ages with any certainty? No, I'm not now going with the "Ice Age Now" belief, but 10,000 years is a really long time - I'd hold off on a comment like that until we have a better understanding of these things.

I look forward to the next 20 years - it will be interesting to see how good these climate models actually are...

C-Bob

November 17, 2006

There is a HUGE difference (sorry for the shout) between Ice Age Now and RealClimate. One is a site promoting the book sales of an individual with limited credentials as a scientist and an absolute lack on reasoning or logic to his ideas. The other is website run by climate scientists, read by climate scientists, with climate scientists as correspondents and contributors, respected in the scientific community and, by and large, both reasoned in its discussion and technically precise where necessary.

Righty-ho! Let's just clarify a few things here - first of all, don't worry about the shout

My comment wasn't upon the legitimacy of the information on the two sites mentioned, merely on their evident bias. I also added in the qualifier "almost" when referring to realclimate, suggesting that their degree of bias was not as great as Ice Age Now's. There is most definitely a bias on realclimate's site, since all the climatologists who are connected with the site support the consensus view that GW is occurring. (More on "Consensus Science in a moment!)

RealClimate is not an 'alarmist' site, nor does it sensationalise the issues or the science.

In all fairness I should have left a paragraph break before saying what irritates me. I was not trying to insinuate that realclimate is an extreme pro-GW site that could fairly be described as "alarmist" (although Ice Age Now is an extreme anti-GW site that could fairly be described as "denialist"). The alarmist/denialist comment was intended as a separate comment on extremes of the GW debate. As I say, the layout of that paragraph was a tad ambiguous - my bad!

Cap'n Bobski: there is a lag of approximately 800 years in the ice cores between the start of warming and the rise of CO2. This is then followed by several thousand years of continued warming, running alongside CO2 levels; more heat, more life, more CO2, more heat...
Try to think of the situation we are currently in as one where the 800 year build-up has been short-circuited by industrialisation; where does that put us on the graph now?; on a rising trend. There are many articles on this. It doesn't cast any doubt on the science of, or the evidence for, AGW.

Two things on your first comment - firstly, you are agreeing that initially temperature rise preceded CO2 rise, yes? Your second sentence there makes it sound like the temperature continued to increase for 400,000 years, despite the dips. But, regardless of that, at every upturn of the graph, temperature precedes CO2 increase. And, in fact, at a couple of points (such as around the 110,000 years ago mark) temperature increases despite a continuous downward trend in CO2 levels!

If the alleged central causes of GW, such as CO2, are not being properly handled then I would say that it does cast doubt on the science of AGW. If CO2 caused temperature increase, as we are told time and time again by the climatologists, then why does the graph quite clearly show the exact opposite?

:lol:

C-Bob

PS - On "Consensus Science"...I know you disregard Michael Crichton's climatological viewpoint, but his views as a scientist are worth noting. Try the link below and read a few of his speeches (to respected audiences) - especially "Testimony of Michael Crichton before the United States Senate", "Aliens Cause Global Warming" and "Environmentalism as Religion". Definitely worth reading.

November 17, 2006

Well, had Monckton's piece been peer reviewed, at least he might have then removed some of the more glaringly obvious inaccuracies and misunderstandings
Quoting Gavin Menzies' theories as if they are established fact - might as well throw in Von Daniken's space aliens for all the credibility that gives .....

Fair play - I'll grant there are inaccuracies in the piece, but I'm saying it's wrong to dismiss the whole article because of where it was published. I have to confess that the Chinese Navy bit was a tad hard to believe and unnecessary to his argument, so kind of shot himself in the foot there. But regardless, there's some good scientific analysis there, too - the notes are well worth a read...

C-Bob

November 17, 2006

Oh - also, WIB, if you read through the notes of Monckton's article you might find a likely reason for this approach to presenting his findings. With a dubious peer review system in place (see his section on the infamous "Hockey Stick" graph), and the general reluctance of science journals to print legitimate scientific papers that go against the tide of the consensus opinion (also referenced in the Hockey Stick debate with regards the original rebuttal of the graph), it seems unlikely that his piece would be published.

And since the piece isn't a "scientific paper" as such, but rather a summary of perceived faults in the GW theory, I would argue that the article as it stands is perfectly placed in a newspaper. His notes would be more apt for a scientific journal.

Finally, if you're going to talk about "misrepresenting facts" then perhaps you should check the background of all scientific articles, since Monckton gives good evidence that climatologists have been doing the same for years. I would also refer you to Michael Crichton's official website (link below) to read some of his speeches. He has given a variety of speeches to scientists and politicians about a variety of subjects - two particularly relevant speeches are "Aliens Cause Global Warming", and "Testimony of Michael Crichton before the United States Senate". (These are not Anti-GW speeches, despite the deceptive title of the first, but rather speeches about observing the correct scientific method. And, no, he's not trying to claim that Aliens actually are causing Global Warming!)

C-Bob

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/index.html

November 17, 2006

So what? So a lot. It's a serious debate and he's popped it into a newspaper.

Obviously it's a serious debate, but since the government's plans to push through radical policy changes demand at least a tiny bit of public support (for fear of a revolt, worst case scenario - there's the politics thing again!), it is important that the public isn't beaten into submission by the media (or climatologists) over GW. The fact is, most of the population of England don't read scientific journals, and if it were published in such a journal the odds are that few, if any, newspapers would be likely to print it. Monckton is obviously concerned that the public is not being given the full story, so is presenting a rebuttal that the public can read (and dismiss, or refute, or not read at all, as is their choice).

Once again, though, the origins of the article are irrelevant if there is substance to the claims. Once again, he has a long list of sources and references in his notes that the reader can follow up if they feel the need. Certainly there is still debate about the role of CO2 in global warming (as I have been discussing in the Global Warming thread), but the public are presented "facts" as though it is an open and shut case.

I think you are putting too much emphasis on the source of the article and not enough on the substance!

:blink:

C-Bob

November 17, 2006

Just a quick note -

I discovered yesterday, while perusing Christopher Monckton's notes on his article, that the graphs I posted yesterday were the exact same ones he used! (He has also printed the graphs, though not superimposed, on page 4 of his notes.) This is just to let you know that I actually came across the graphs in a completely different place - I don't want it to appear, wrongfully, that I have taken my whole argument from the Monckton piece (or that I am Monckton incognito!). I got the graph from the UNEP/GRID-Arendal site. Here's the link to the graph:

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm

:blink:

C-Bob

November 17, 2006

I agree - I think we were talking about climate change! :blink:

Going back to the fact it was printed in the Telegraph - so what?! Let's face it, a pro-GW newspaper wouldn't run the article anyway (and I don't think I've found a paper yet that is genuinely unbiased one way or the other), so the fact it was published in an anti-GW newspaper is neither here nor there, as that's the most likely place to find it. So long as the piece is scientifically accurate (dependant on correct presentation of the facts, true, but also on whether or not there has been any willful distortion of those facts) and not founded on baseless claims then its information is useful.

If the Telegraph (or, worse yet, The Sun!!) were to print the full text of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, would that invalidate the work? No. So, as I said before, check his references, follow his lead and see if his sources and his conclusions are reasonable - if they are then who cares where it was printed?!

:blink:

C-Bob

November 16, 2006

Hi - I meant this latest piece. I thought the syntax was pretty dire. Very sloppy stuff, but then I suppose it was in a tabloid. Oh, I mean the Daily Telegraph.
I do think it matters very much where something appears. The newspapers are not the place generally for serious debate, and it isn't exactly peer reviewed. The D Tel will always tend to promulgate right of centre material, as the Guardian and Independent will tend to do the same the other way. This piece has all the hallmarks of a sloppy editorial fist all over it, so it may not be Monckton's fault at all.

You don't tend to find balance from one newspaper imo. Each has it's own clientelle to massage (more than challenge) and, more importantly, they have their paymasters to please. In the case of the Barclay brothers, and before them the complete crook Conrad Black, I wouldn't hold out too much hope for fair play. However, there are some signs at last that the Barclays might be moving the paper's idiotic support for the disastrous Iraq war, so there are signs of hope that change is possible.

In general though I'm always very suspicious when I read things in the British media ...

Well, I appreciate where you stand. I am also generally very suspicious of an average, run-of-the-mill newspaper article, but this seemed something different. It wasn't just an undirected attack on Global Warming (which we've seen in numerous articles in numerous papers on numerous occasions), but a specific attack at aspects of the theory that are contentious or that, in his opinion having studied source material, have been deliberately skewed.

It is refreshing to see an article of this type that actually bothers to include notes of sources and references, and I look forward to spending some time checking up on them to see how and why he has reached his conclusions. If it's twaddle then it's twaddle, regardless of the number of references! But if he's actually right... :blink: ...!!!

Out of interest, besides the apparently apocryphal story of the Chinese Navy and the inadvertent insertion of a redundant term in one of his measurement units, where has he actually distorted facts? It's always worth following up faulty points!

TTFN

C-Bob

November 16, 2006

Monkton has now had to issue an apology for screwing up facts. Some of them are in a paragraph half way down page 1 where he admits he made a series of mistakes: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml....xml&page=1
Other errors he admits through the article, which I have to say is written in incredibly poor English.
He's now trying to move the agenda onto something else, but the fact is he distorted information in the first place.
Not surprising to have seen it published in the right of centre, industrial-supporting, D Tel either ...

I didn't find the article badly written - there were a couple of instances that could have been clarified by a comma or two, but generally it was an easy-to-read and well thought-out article. If you had read the notes he links to in the first article then you would see that he isn't "moving the agenda onto something else" but is concluding the argument that he began in the first article.

There is a difference, also, between "screwing up facts" and "distorting" facts. If he has "screwed up" facts then he has misinterpreted or misunderstood them in the course of his research. If he "distorted" facts then he made a deliberate, conscious decision to spread false information. It seems funny to accuse Mr Monkton of distorting facts as a way of discrediting his accusations of climatologists distorting facts.

And finally, what difference does it make where it was published? If the article has been researched thoroughly and presented intelligently then it doesn't matter whether it was published in the Telegraph or the Sun. A very interesting article, and one with plenty of references to follow up - if it is foundationless twaddle then the references will bear that out... :blink:

C-Bob

Here is the link to the notes, BTW, just in case a link hasn't yet been posted!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2...5/warm-refs.pdf

November 16, 2006

Hope I can use this thread to make a point.....many people ridicule the "Ice-age Now" website, but if I stand back and try to look through dispassionate eyes, it seems to me that the media hype about GW is at an equally "up for ridicule" state. Both sides trying to shout the other down. Hysteria setting in. Who to believe? :blink:

You're absolutely right - I said in an earlier post: "I've always found realclimate to be biased towards global warming, almost as much as "Ice Age Now" is biased away from it.". What irritates me is the fact that the two extreme sides of the debate seem to spend more time patronising their rivals than actually responding to the arguments. Two of the most frequently used words seem to be "denialists" (used, sometimes scornfully, by pro-GW people) and "alarmists" (used, sometimes scornfully, by anti-GW people). I suggest alternative words, such as "skeptic" and "believer", both of which have associated negative connotations but are, when taken at face value, perfectly accurate words.

I wish the writers of these articles would cut out this kind of sniping and concentrate on the issue which, I'm sure, would greatly help in clearing these otherwise murky waters!

C-Bob

PS - I hasten to add that sometimes, depending on the context, both "alarmist" and "denialist" are legitimate words. Anyone who refutes a claim, without grounds, is either an alarmist or a denialist. It is important to back up rebuttals with some form of evidence to the contrary.

November 16, 2006

As a quick update, looking for a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, here is a pair of graphs, overlaid so they are on the same axes - the pink line is atmospheric CO2 and the blue line is temperature.

The source of these graphs is J R Petit, J Jouzel, et al. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core in Antarctica, Nature 399 (3 June), pp429-436, 1999.

By overlaying the graphs, which are to the exact same scale, it appears that - for the most part - CO2 followed temperature change... At least, in the fossil record. Does anyone disagree with these graphs?

:lol:

C-Bob

PS - I overlaid these graphs myself (I'm being supremely honest here!). I didn't alter the two graphs in any way (not even resizing or scaling), just overlaid them so that the x-axes were synchronised. Attached below is the original pair of graphs in jpeg format, just in case anyone else wants to double-check my splicing!

November 15, 2006

Once again, a thorough and informative post - thanks for that P3!

Roger G.: I think you have it the wrong way round; the scientists are at the mercy of the Media.

I have to agree with P3 here - scientists do their work, then the media make their story. Whether or not scientists are biased by the source of their funding is generally not an issue. Occasionally you'll get a scientist who stands up and cries armageddon, but usually it's the media who take an honest, innocent paper, grab a few soundbites and construct the story they want.

Cap'n Bobski: the alleged 'heat island effect' is a familiar denialist claim that the temperature record is unreliable.

Fair play there, P3 - the answers are only a Google away! In the "Heat Island Effect's" defence, it seems that it was originally a legitimate "problem" with the models which, with the greater understanding that followed, later became incorporated into, and ironed out of, climate models. The fact that it is still used by "denialists" doesn't give the original proposal its due credit. (And in my defence, I confess that I hadn't read up on latest developments with it and had just come across it while looking at the CO2 problem! I was raising the issue as a point of interest, not as a refutation of GW!)

The author's message at the end of State of Fear is well worth a read, though - he makes some good points in it, and acknowledges various aspects of the AGW argument. As a point of fact, he doesn't dismiss GW out of hand. I wouldn't say that he has been unfairly run through the mill, though. Any author that writes a book (fact or fiction) based on such a contentious issue knows the flak he's liable to attract - I say fair play to him for his bravery! Still, those temperature data that he presents are interesting, nonetheless.

And finally....thanks for the link re DO cycles - I'll check it out soon!

Chin-chin!

C-Bob

November 14, 2006

Adaptation to what though?

Historically, organisms adapt to changes as they happen, rather than pre-emptively adapting. There's a lot to be said for adaptation if it turns out that there is nothing we can do to stop climate change!

Meanwhile, back on the CO2 issue, I got side-tracked while looking at various articles and came across another issue that prevents me from dropping on the AGW side of the fence - the Heat Island Effect. The problem here is that many weather stations are in populated areas, and many of those are in densely populated areas - temperatures within cities are almost guaranteed to record higher temperatures due to the excess warmth in and around populated areas. In climate models and predictions, the Heat Island Effect is supposed to be taken into account by the process of "normalisation" (or "homogenisation", or a variety of other terms which all mean the same thing). However there is some doubt as to whether or not this process adequately takes the Heat Island Effect into account.

In his book "State of Fear", Michael Crichton presents some graphs plotted using data from USHCN. He shows 3 graphs from New York State covering the same 180 year time span, one from New York City, one from West Point and one from Albany. He states that New York City and Albany are 140 miles apart, and that West Point falls somewhere in between. The results of the graph, showing the change in mean temperature over the 180 year period, are as follows:

New York City..............+5F

West Point...................no change

Albany........................-0.5F

The data are available for download by ftp at the USHCN website: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...shcn/ushcn.html

I have downloaded some datasets and I'm trying to sort through the relevant bits but, so far, the information in "State of Fear" seems legitimate. The crux of the argument is that the "real" temperature change is shown in West Point and Albany, where there has been little or no development or increase in population in 180 years, whereas New York City's deviation is skewed by its massive development and population increase in the same time period.

I've seen other forums where Michael Crichton's name has been mentioned and his results are instantly pooh-poohed because "He's an author of fiction, so..." I would respond to this criticism by saying that Michael Crichton is a very smart man, with degrees under his belt (mainly in medicine, but you don't earn a medical degree by being stupid!), who really does his research before writing anything. He has a comprehensive bibliographical appendix in State of Fear, which I have just started to cross-reference - not everyone in the bibliography agrees with the views stated in the book, and several of the papers directly contradict conclusions in the book, which shows how honest he is. He has analysed a lot of evidence, made an educated decision based on his findings and then written the book - I can think of few authors who would do that.

Sign In

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Events

Learn About Weather and Meteorology

Community guides

Posts posted by Admiral_Bobski