April 9, 2008...5:57 pm
Activist reveals she urged BBC to suppress inconvenient truths about climate change — and bullied reporter into changing story that revealed no global warming since 1998
BREAKING NEWS
Reporter worried ‘debate being censored’
A global warming activist has taken credit for controversial changes made to the BBC news story I wrote about on Sunday that revealed average world temperatures have not risen since 1998.
UK activist Jo Abess has published a series of emails between her and journalist Roger Harrabin, the BBC News environment analyst whose story created a flurry of angry reactions on this blog and many others around the world after it was reported at the weekend.
When I noticed substantial changes had been made to the original story as posted on the BBC website, I emailed Roger Harrabin on Sunday asking if he had been pressured to amend it, and he assured me this had not happened.
But on the UK Campaign Against Climate Change portal, Jo Abess calls on fellow activists “to challenge any piece of media that seems like it’s been subject to spin or scepticism,” adding: “The BBC actually changed an article I requested a correction for.”
Tag teams of Global Warming activists work the Internet around the world challenging the publication of anything that contradicts what they claim is a “settled scientific consensus” that massive climate change caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions threatens the immediate future of the planet.
For example, when I published an article on this blog at 6.11am on Sunday about the BBC “no warming for a decade” story, the first “very angry” response was posted in my comments section just 13 minutes later, with many more flooding the blog in the next 24 hours. Three activists posted often-sarcastic rebutting comments around the clock, attacking the post and virtually every comment posted in support of the BBC item.
Similar attacks are made on blogs and news sites around the world whenever an item is published that questions any aspect of climate change theory.
The timestamps on the emails Jo Abess has made public indicate she contacted the BBC’s Roger Harrabin soon after I first saw his report on a BBC World bulletin on Friday night.
Abess asked him to correct his story titled “Global temperatures ‘to decrease’,” on the grounds its comment that “a minority of scientists question whether… global warming has peaked” was wrong.
“Several networks exist that question whether global warming has peaked, but they contain very few actual scientists, and the scientists that they do contain are not climate scientists so have no expertise in this area,” she told him.
She also objected to the story saying global temperatures this year would be lower than in 2007 because of La Nina.
“You should not mislead people into thinking that the sum total of the Earth system is going to be cooler in 2008 than 2007. For example, the ocean systems of temperature do not change in yearly timescales, and are massive heat sinks that have shown gradual and continual warming. It is only near-surface air temperatures that will be affected by La Nina, plus a bit of the lower atmosphere.”
Roger Harrabin emailed a reply 11 minutes after she contacted him.
“No correction is needed,” he told her. “If the secy-gen of the WMO [World Meteorological Organisation] tells me that global temperatures will decrease, that’s what we will report. There are scientists who question whether warming will continue as projected by IPCC.”
Abess was not satisfied with that response. “Would you be willing to publish information that expands on your original position, and which would give a better, clearer picture of what is going on? Personally, I think it is highly irresponsible to play into the hands of the sceptics/skeptics who continually promote the idea that ‘global warming finished in 1998,’ when that is so patently not true. I have to spend a lot of my time countering their various myths and non-arguments.”
Roger Harrabin’s response to that, sent 20 minutes later, was as robust as his first, and shows he was concerned about censoring of the news: “The article makes all these points quite clear. We can’t ignore the fact that sceptics have jumped on the lack of increase since 1998. It is appearing regularly now in general media. Best to tackle this – and explain it, which is what we have done, or people feel like debate is being censored, which makes them v suspicious.”
Abess replied saying that many people don’t read an entire article, only the headline, “which is why it is so utterly essential to give the full picture, or as full as you can in the first few paragraphs.”
She also objected to his use of the word “debate,” saying “this is not an issue of ‘debate’. This is an issue of emerging truth. I don’t think you should worry about whether people feel they are countering some kind of conspiracy, or suspicious that the full extent of the truth is being withheld from them. Every day more information is added to the stack showing the desperate plight of the planet. It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics. Their voice is heard everywhere, on every channel. They are deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth.”
The only way I can read those extraordinary words of Abess is that she is telling the BBC journalist it is okay not to tell people the full story and it is okay to suppress contrary voices and facts for some greater good of the planet.
Then, in an breathtaking piece of bullying, she tells him: “I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter. I am about to send your comments to others for their contribution, unless you request I do not. They are likely to want to post your comments on forums/fora, so please indicate if you do not want this to happen. You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics.”
Roger Harrabin appears to have caved in at this point, as his short reply to her is: “Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier. We have changed headline and more.”
And as I reported on Sunday, the original story was then altered by the addition of contrary opinions and dates being inserted high up in it and a playing down of the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, a year of a strong El Nino that caused record temperatures.
The original story, as it went to air on BBC World and was published on the BBC website before Jo Abess’s interventions, is here. The altered version is here. The differences are striking.
In particular, this key third sentence from the original has been removed: “This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.” The headline was changed from ‘Global temperature “to decrease” ’ to ‘Global warming “dips this year” ’ , then, curiously, back to the original, perhaps on second thoughts.
The emails Abess has posted appear to contradict Roger Harrabin’s assurance to me on Sunday night that the original story was only changed because it was misleading: “There is no conspiracy,” he told me. “All you have caught by capturing our first version [is] a sub-optimal piece of writing. We changed it because we like to get it right… Do us all a favour and let our first version r.i.p.”
I have asked Roger Harrabin by email for his comments on Jo Abess’s claims, and will publish them when I hear from him.
68 Comments
April 9, 2008 at 6:17 pm
> she is telling the BBC journalist it is okay not to tell people the full story and it is okay to suppress contrary voices…
>the original story was then altered by the addition of contrary opinions…
Oh dear. It looks like naughty Roger didn’t follow his instructions…
Poneke: there is a debate going on. As far as I can tell it’s being promoted by journalists, activists, and lobbyists. I haven’t seen much evidence (from either side) that there is genuine debate amongst climatologists.
Disclosure: I can read, and I can count, but I am not a journalist, activist, lobbyist or climatologist.
April 9, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Great catch, Poneke. Got them red-handed, with their trousers down.
The greatest danger in all this is the value being placed on “truth” and “facts”. Keep up the good fight!
April 9, 2008 at 8:01 pm
It’s very easy to pick one or two points in a data series and claim a trend. If we knew nothing about greenhouse gases, then claiming that warming “has stopped” would be a fair assumption, and the title of the article would be reasonable.
However, since the greenhouse gases aren’t simply going to go away and stop doing their thing (which has been experimentally verified many times - something many so called skeptics are unaware of, as demonstrated in today’s Australian), it’s a wholly unreasonable title for an article. This has nothing to do with ‘censorship’, and everything to do with hyperbole in climate reporting, something that bugs us both. The headline simply isn’t supported by the facts - we could say that warming has ’stopped’ many times in the last century, but every peak is then surpassed, and pauses and dips are soon erased. Climate is a long term phenomenon, and to attribute a single event - a heatwave or a cold month or a single hurricane - to either cooling or warming - is to engage in either ignorance or spin. I don’t have time for either.
There is nothing we can do to change the fact that greenhouse gases warm the planet.
See also; 1915, 1920, 1926, 1932, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1971, 1982, 1989, 1999, 2004.
[Poneke says: George, you must have been looking at a different BBC story from everyone else. The one referred to in this thread was not headlined "global warming has stopped" and nor did it claim any such thing. It was headlined "Global temperatures to decrease" and quoted the WMO as saying that would happen for 2008 because of La Nina.]
April 9, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I think what the climate change activists are doing is justified. My reason for thinking that is that it forces the debate to look more closely at the arguments which tend to have reasonably long roots.
Just for the record Poneke, what do you make of the Argo ocean temperature readings and the Aqua satellite data?
April 9, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I think what the climate change activists are doing is justified.
And I do not think suppression of the truth or suppression of opinion are ever justified, no matter how unpalatable or unpopular the truth or the opinion, and no matter how good is the cause of the suppressor.
In all my years in journalism, I have never seen so bare-faced and blatant an example of somebody demanding that lies be told and facts be suppressed by the media in the name of a cause as in these emails of Jo Abess.
If the truth about climate change is as obvious and significant as Ms Abess claims, then it will stand any scrutiny. It does not need the suppression of sceptical viewpoints to survive and triumph. If her truth can only triumph by suppressing counter-arguments, then it does not deserve to survive, for it will not be truth, but propaganda.
April 9, 2008 at 10:17 pm
The readers of this blog, both local and those from other countries far beyond NZ, have been fortunate to witnessed prompt first class investigative reporting in action by Poneke exposing one of the now increasing exposé’s of the BBC’s violations of one of its own Charter and Producers Guidelines, viz.
“…Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All programs and services should be open minded, fair and show a respect for truth…The BBC applies due impartiality to all its broadcasting and services, both to domestic and international audiences…”
Good work Poneke, keep it up.
April 9, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Both versions are more or less correct, the second version is more technically accurate.
Using 1998 is a cherry pick, if you compare 2007 with 1997 or 1999 or ANY other year prior to 2001, 2007 is easily warmer.
Regarding your description of me, Terence and RedLogix as “activists”, well, I can’t speak for the others but I can’t see how that’s a reasonable application of the term, I’m not a member of any political organisation or lobby group. My comments on AGW simply point out the errors and misrepresentations that people make on the science of AGW.
I suppose if you are to stretch “activist” to include people who comment half a dozen or so times on a blog topic that interests them then almost everyone who commented on that thread is an “activist” on one topic or another on various blogs.
You refer to a “very angry” response in that thread, that was by silvercharm, (not one of your three “activists”
I don’t understand why posting a comment 13 minutes after the post has gone up is in itself a justification for criticism, DPF frequently gets comments on his posts within 2 or 3 minutes, as far as I know he doesn’t have a problem with it.
I had always assumed that the reason blogs have comments sections are so that people can comment, perhaps that’s just other blogs.
Maybe your attacks on me and the other “activists” simply demonstrate a lie in your claim that “[you] do not think suppression of the truth or suppression of opinion are ever justified.”
Poneke, you cannot give one instance in which I’ve made an inaccurate claim, or a claim that doesn’t have mainstream scientific backing.
April 9, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Actually, if we’re going to be honest, 2005 was hotter than 1998; if we consider a graph such as temp. vs. year, the trendline points upwards; and the decade from 1998-2008 is much hotter than the previous decade from 1988-1998.
So, if we’re going to be honest, global warming hasn’t stopped, nor is there any indication that it will stop.
Malcom,
Right - paradigm shifts are quite compelling evidence that consensus does not equate with certainty. But let’s remember which way this paradigm shift has occurred: from “global cooling” of the 1970’s to recognition of new data in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
The trendlines don’t lie. James Hansen’s 1988 predictions, and their validation by measured results in the 20 years since, don’t lie either.
And also, let’s not fool ourselves: this is a complicated subject to discuss, what with dozens of potential climate forcings that have to be discussed (and are discussed in the IPCC reports) to reach a conclusion. I’m a scientist (biologist) and I don’t have the time nor academic background to digest ALL of that information. For us as laypersons, it makes more sense to let the relevant experts duke it out in their journals, conferences, etc. It also makes sense for them to summarize their conclusions for the rest of us laypersons, in thorough reports (the IPCC) and in official statements from the relevant professional organizations. That is to say: yes, consensus isn’t the final word by a long shot, but for non-experts we must be realistic and acknowledge the expertise of others on this topic, and in particular, the collective expertise of large bodies of the relevant scientists.
April 10, 2008 at 12:32 am
The ecoloon sems to spell her name more often as Jo Abbess. What’s happened to the BBC? I thought they would stand up to that kind of pressure. Now this story is everywhere, and Harrabin’s reputation is ruined.
Perhaps the BBC could reinstate the original article and tell Abbess to piss off.
April 10, 2008 at 6:09 am
I don’t understand why posting a comment 13 minutes after the post has gone up is in itself a justification for criticism
You mistake the reporting of a simple statement of fact as a criticism.
It was just after six in the morning. I marvel that people are up at that time waiting to pounce on blog stories they disapprove of. Your own first comment was at 7.21, you were still posting comments at 8.59pm and you were back with more at 7.28am next day. That is serious devotion to your cause, and impresses me greatly. It is far from a criticism.
Now what I would really like to hear are your views on the activities of Jo Abess in getting Roger Harrabin to alter his story, particularly your views on her comments that sceptical views should not be reported, that “I don’t think you should worry about whether people feel they are countering some kind of conspiracy, or suspicious that the full extent of the truth is being withheld from them,” and “I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter” and this: “You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics.”
Is this an activist seeking to bully a reporter and manipulate what appears in the news, or is it an activist seeking to bully a reporter and manipulate what appears in the news?
April 10, 2008 at 6:27 am
Malcolm,
Are you sure you understand the problem of induction? Because Hansen’s model, and the empirical validation of it since, isn’t an inductive inference, it’s a Bayesian inference. Nice try though.
What’s ironic is that you restate a request for “predictive tests of competing hypotheses,” while missing my citation of Hansen’s predictive model and the test of it.
April 10, 2008 at 6:56 am
“If her truth can only triumph by suppressing counter-arguments, then it does not deserve to survive, for it will not be truth, but propaganda”
I think three things matter 1. It is of (potentially) unprecedented importance and 2. there is a lot of scientific consensus (90%? ) and 3. the issues are complex.
When ideas change and a great chasm opens up in the scientific community that will be different, but for now her actions were justified.
April 10, 2008 at 7:34 am
Wow, that environmental activist must have a lot of clout, like a PrimeMinister. I wonder if I can write a few letters to journalists to bully them in to changing their articles…No, somehow I don’t think they would, unless I could show them that the articles had errors in them.
Poneke: “Your own first comment was at 7.21, you were still posting comments at 8.59pm and you were back with more at 7.28am next day. That is serious devotion to your cause, and impresses me greatly. It is far from a criticism.”
Thank you, and you’re right, in that I spend far too much of my time on the topic.
In all modesty though I can’t claim the first comment on the thread as the wordpress clock changed between you posting the article and my comment clearing moderation, my first comment was made over an hour after the you posted.
I’m not overly interested in Jo Abess’s views and threats, and I doubt Roger Harrabin was either, I just can’t see him being intimidated by her nonsense, so I suspect the other considerations were his motivation for the change.
The first part of this sentence “This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.” is accurate in itself but so is this sentence: “Between 2000 and 2005 temperatures rose by 0.25C, if temperatures continue to rise at this rate the world will warm by 5C this century.”
They are both accurate, but they are both equally dishonest in cherry picking dates to justify making claims that aren’t scientifically sound.
April 10, 2008 at 8:39 am
For example, when I published an article on this blog at 6.11am on Sunday about the BBC “no warming for a decade” story, the first “very angry” response was posted in my comments section just 13 minutes later, with many more flooding the blog in the next 24 hours.
Yeah. How dare anyone be up reading the internet early in the morning? Next thing you know, people will be making blog posts before 7am! Can you see the irony here?
Three activists posted often-sarcastic rebutting comments around the clock, attacking the post and virtually every comment posted in support of the BBC item.
Yeah, damn those activists and their, their … sarcasm. Think of the children!
Similar attacks are made on blogs and news sites around the world whenever an item is published that questions any aspect of climate change theory.
You got 52 comments, including a couple of snippy ones, that amounted to the usual lively debate around this topic. (It did make me smile to see Clint Heine, of all people, commiserating with you over “abusive” comments.) If that’s not what you want, turn off comments.
But your implication that several of your commenters are colluding to “attack” you is silly. All three of the people you’re talking about comment on Public Address and they strike me as knowledgeable and responsible correspondents on a range of subjects. Moreover, they comment in good faith (and sometimes good humour). You should bear that good faith in mind when you’re tossing around allegations of conspiracy.
Back OT: Ms Abbess does seem pompous and smug — and she’s pretty soundly ripped for it by several of her fellow “believers” in the thread you linked to.
[Poneke says: Russell, don't mistake straight reporting of what happens for criticism of views you approve of. The post above is written as a news story (me being a journalist), not a commentary. I simply marvel though at the enthusiasm of people who are so dedicated to their cause that they sit on the Net around the clock to counter opposing arguments. There is a very good cartoon on this subject, of someone sitting up all night because someone was "wrong" on the Internet. There were many more than 52 comments, some were on other threads, and I aggregated many multiple comments by the enthusiasts into single comments, to leave room for others to have a say... the enthusiasts tended to respond to every comment not from themselves, so they were making a lot of them!]
April 10, 2008 at 8:44 am
“Three activists posted often-sarcastic rebutting comments around the clock, attacking the post and virtually every comment posted in support of the BBC item”.
I read the first three days’ worth of comments to that post. Speaking as someone currently making a major effort to sort out where the balance of probability lies on global warming (and feeling very acutely the truth of the late Arthur C Clarke’s dictum “For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert”
I found your three activists reasoned, reasonable and persuasive. I can’t say I noticed the over-the-top aggression your characterisation of them implies, either. I’m grateful to everyone who took part in that exchange, because collectively you’ve given me a much better sense of the arguments. But it was the “sceptics” (a much abused word, if you ask me) who seemed happiest to resort to cheap shots, easy rhetoric and general rudeness.
April 10, 2008 at 9:22 am
Poneke says: Russell, don’t mistake straight reporting of what happens for criticism of views you approve of. The post above is written as a news story (me being a journalist), not a commentary.
If you can demonstrate to the standards of a conventional news report that the three readers you’re referring to can reasonably be described as “activists”, and that they are colluding, as part of a global network, to “attack” you, you should do so.
Otherwise, you’re maligning them and making yourself look daft. The editor would, I fear, have sent this “straight news story” back with a stern note.
[Poneke says: I am the editor, daft or not. You read far too much into one paragraph of a story that I think is about something of major journalistic significance, that an environmental activist appears to have bullied a BBC reporter into changing a published story to reflect her view of the world.]
April 10, 2008 at 9:45 am
Oh anyway, I don’t want to be all censurious. But your characterisation of the discussion thread didn’t seem to tally with how it actually read.
If anything, the language in response was largely more restrained than that in the “article” itself (”scare stories … purported … True Believers …”). You can’t fling around language like that and then come over all passive-aggressive when someone disagrees. Well, you can, but it’s not a great look.
The “no warming since 1998″ meme isn’t new, but the way it swings around reminds me of the days of the GE debate. Try Googling “1998 temperature risen” — you’ll find page after page of web results that say essentially the same things, usually (again) declaring the demise of global warming theory.
A well-referenced rebuttal, such as that provided by several of your correspondents is much more difficult to find, unless you go to reputable science sites, which don’t seem to be faring well in PageRank. It doesn’t seem to me that it’s the “sceptical” view that is being drowned out.
April 10, 2008 at 9:55 am
your characterisation of the discussion thread didn’t seem to tally with how it actually read.
As a journalist, what concerns me is not the minutae of the comments on this blog, but the ramifications for journalism of an environmental activist bullying a senior BBC journalist of international standing into changing a story that has been published on the BBC website and run on the BBC World news service, because that story did not fit her world view. I actually think that is rather important. I’d really like to hear your views, and those of other journalists, and of everyone else, on that.
April 10, 2008 at 10:07 am
Russell wrote: “If you can demonstrate to the standards of a conventional news report that the three readers you’re referring to can reasonably be described as “activists”, and that they are colluding, as part of a global network, to “attack” you, you should do so”.
Now who’s being precious. You don’t mind referring to sceptics as “deniers” but you take offence at the word “activists”. I know which desription I’d take greatest offence at and it isn’t the latter.
April 10, 2008 at 10:08 am
I find it somewhat odd that a journalist from any publication would at all be cowed by several emails from anyone. It isn’t as if that person is advancing on the journalist armed with a knfe and bad intent.
Rather, I wonder if said journalist may have taken some time to check his facts for the original story. I was unaware that once an article has been written it is unable to be changed.
I hardly think it the crime of the year to be up at six am and have a read though ones email and a look at the RSS Feeds. Given that the same old ‘criticisms’ of climate change are continually being regurgitated,it doesn’t take much time or effort to fire off a rebuttal.
I have to laugh at ‘Tag teams of Global Warming activists work the Internet’…I have an interest and merely take the time to occasionally point out some of the more egregious statments that are made by some folk who really ought to take the time to know better.
I certainly don’t see it as a religion. But I do see climate change as having the potential to radically alter this world. The mess that is Darfur. The rioting about food prices that is happening now. The warnings to leaders that it is only going to get worse.
Now there is a story…
April 10, 2008 at 10:18 am
I’d really like to hear your views, and those of other journalists, and of everyone else.
My view is that the language she used was awful, but the activity itself was not much more than what the legions of public relations employees of private companies get up to around the world everyday. Either for companies that directly employ them, or for outfits like Burson Marsteller, who they hire to lobby journalists on their behalf.
One example of this kind of activity was shown in the film The Corporation, where Monsanto lobbied Fox News not to broadcast the report of investigative journalists into problems with Bovine Somatropin (or <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posilac#Lawsuit_against_Fox_television”Posilac). If you haven’t seen it, it’s well worth renting the DVD.
The fact that this person was stupid enough to then boast about what she thought she had achieved on a website just shows how much of an amateur she is - regardless of the wrongs or rights of the cause. Professional lobbyists don’t need to boast of their PR successes - their clients/employers see the results internally. Maybe she’s trying to build a name for herself and get a job? If so, it’s kind of backfired - like the UK government ministerial adviser who told her boss on September 11 2001 that today was ‘a great day to bury bad news’ and get out announcements on topics where they didn’t want any press scrutiny.
But to try and pretend that different organisations and people that care about a particular subject are not going to try and influence the coverage of that subject by the news media is a little naive - which I don’t think you are. I’d be very surprised if lobbying on what to report had never happened to you in the course of your journalistic career. Whether you ‘gave in’ to it is another matter, of course.
April 10, 2008 at 10:20 am
Abess was rightly castigated by the the activists who responded to her post. She seems insufferable. But I’m *really* struggling to see the scandal in the story as it was published.
The first version says:
“This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and the earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.
But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.”
And the second version says:
“This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.
But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.”
Aren’t they *exactly the same* on the key point?
I agree with Harrabin that the second version is better-written (”But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years” is a rubbish line to have high up in a story). He should have sent Abess off with a flea in her ear, but the second story *is* better. It’s longer, better-written and has more information in it.
April 10, 2008 at 10:22 am
Now who’s being precious. You don’t mind referring to sceptics as “deniers” but you take offence at the word “activists”. I know which desription I’d take greatest offence at and it isn’t the latter.
“Deniers” is a matter of opinion. “Activists” is a claim of fact. It’s not pejorative — it just doesn’t seem to be true.
April 10, 2008 at 10:26 am
It’s good to see that Ms Abess, who seems to have conferred upon herself the title of AGW expert, realises that the study of climate change is a mere “infant science”. As more information comes to light, the theories and predictions emanating from this science will undoubtedly change.
Second, sceptics are apparently everywhere, according to Ms Abess! Why she is so concerned at this fact is not made clear in her emails, although we are described as being very “obstructive”. Here was I thinking that we should have more debate and consensus before committing billions of dollars which may be better spent elsewhere. Silly me.
Third, it’s apparent that when Ms Abess doesn’t get her way, she’s not averse to making personal insults (”you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated”.) You know the believers are in trouble when they can’t let the facts speak for themselves but have to resort to insults.
April 10, 2008 at 11:17 am
I’m sorry about my first response, which was coloured by a terrible article in The Australian, trumpeting a ’skeptic’ with no science background and no idea about key facts that even skeptical scientists have no problem acknowledging. I didn’t address the articles in question directly.
To the second article, I will say that it is much much better than the first, because it gives the reader sufficient depth to understand the concepts, as compared to the first which is hardly more than a couple of factoids.
I will confess to being an ‘activist’ - I have been an active member of Greenpeace, and demonstrated against climate change. It’s no stretch to characterise me as an environmentalist. It’s a label I wear proudly
But I’m also liberal, and respect the right of others to disagree with me, knowing that sometimes they are right. Being an environmentalist doesn’t mean leaving intelligent debate at the door. I generally only challenge others when they are ignoring facts, or plainly misrepresenting things, as those who ignore masses of scientific evidence regarding global warming usually do.
The problem, as noted above and by others, is that by presenting ‘controversy’, ‘debate’, and semi-true memes (such as warming stopped in 9
articles in recent years and months have provided fodder and intellectual buttressing for those who would rather not deal seriously with the science behind climate change, but would rather see themselves as antagonists for the suppressed side of a debate.
[Poneke says: George, you do not have to be defensive about being an activist. I am an activist myself -- in my case, for freedom of expression and freedom of the media. Activist is not a word I use in a perjorative sense.]
April 10, 2008 at 11:20 am
A fascinating and most revealing post here Poneke.
Nothing shows up more the narrow-mindedness and bigotry of the facist left than how they seek to suppress views different to their own.
This is an issue i have blogged on today, outlining that the left are now enemies of freedom. They oppose free speech, they oppose equality for women and gays and their hatred of western society means they have jumped into bed with radical islam, putting cultural sensitivity before the freedoms they once backed, leaving the despised conservatives, like me, to now champion these values.
The way the facist left talk about global warming ‘deniers’ ,as if likening them to holocaust deniers, highlights how they seek to twist and distort debate through a choice use of words and phrases.
Then they will back it up with an intimidation of people they disagree with, as we have seen with the BBC journalist. I am surprised the BBC crumbled so easily, being such a mighty organisation, even if generally of a left-leaning PC bent.
Anyway, please continue exposing such narrowminded left-wing bigotory Poneke and highlighting those stories that go against the views of the Global Warmongering facists.
We at No Minister support you on this.
We too will carry on exposing the facist left and continue to show our sceptism over global warming.
Indeed, as believers in free speech, we don’t mind if the facist left pop over to http://www.nominister.blogspot.com
I am sure Adolf knows how to deal with them.
April 10, 2008 at 11:35 am
Fairfacts, do you not see the irony in claiming injury over the use of the word “deniers” when you have hurled the word “fascist” no fewer than four times in one brief post?
Read the one above yours, from George, and tell me who’s doing the demonising. Really.
[Poneke says: I second this, Fairfacts, and see my response to Enzer below.]
April 10, 2008 at 11:37 am
‘The way the facist left talk about global warming ‘deniers’ ,as if likening them to holocaust deniers, highlights how they seek to twist and distort debate through a choice use of words and phrases.’
oooh my. Distortion,twisting and the fascist left all in one paragraph.
Kind of reminds me of newspeak.
[Poneke says: Fairfacts is a bit over the top in his online persona, isn't he? I am told that in real life he is a pleasant, modest chap. Nonetheless, it tends to say more about the person using a term like "fascist left" that than it does about his targets, much as I also abhor the use of the term "denier" for someone who has doubts about all of global warming theory. ]
April 10, 2008 at 12:04 pm
The following letter to the editor recently appeared in the Dominion Post. It is available online at Stuff.co.nz.
“I was a speaker at the New York Climate Change Conference. Most talks, including mine, were about some aspect of climate data.
The Heartland Institute, which sponsored the event, gets a whopping 5 per cent of its revenues from oil companies. The sum of all honoraria paid for more than 100 technical talks was less than former United State vice-president Al Gore gets for one talk. We’re not oil-company shills.
My hotel window faced the building in Times Square where they drop the ball on New Year’s Eve. A huge billboard advertised gloom and doom, showing the Amazon rainforest as a city in 2064, Beijing as sand dunes in 2075, and London under ocean waves in 2092. The monthly rent for such signs is almost $1 million. Who is paying so much for propaganda and why? Whoever it is, hold on to your wallets.
Mr Gore got the Nobel Peace Prize, not one for science. That puts him right up there with Yasser Arafat. He and other climate alarmists refer to thousands of us as sceptics and deniers. That puts us right down there with Galileo”.
Dr HOWARD HAYDEN
Professor Emeritus of Physics, Connecticut University
April 10, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Let’s see….
1. the climate change activist challenged the veracity or completeness of information in an article.
2. The article was corrected.
3. The activist tells other activists to challenge media articles that are similarly flawed.
Sounds like business as usual, to me. The journalist concerned has already said he made a mistake and has corrected it asked that the first article be disregarded.
Underlying this is (apparent) presumption by Poneke and others that global temperatures in a warming world will rise in a linear fashion. That is likley not an appropriate presumption in a chaotic system like global weather. It will be more a case of two steps forward (a couple to one side or maybe another) and one step back…..but the TREND over time is onward and upward while CO2 continues to build in the atmosphere..and do so at an ever-increasing rate. We may well be on a teperature plateau at present. It is also the warmest plateau in recorded history and CO2 is still accumulating.
I don’t see how anyone could assume that climate change is therefore bogus. The assumption is based on an arbitrary and improbably presumption of linearity being exhibited by a chaotic system.
The effects of climate change, on temperature or any other thing, won’t be linear.
The changes being noted in the weather and the oceans aren’t being imagined. Looks like the sort of folks who thought Pompei wouldn’t blow (”It’s erupted before and come to nothing. Don’t worry about it!”) are still with us and as imprudent as ever. Even if the climate change deniers are correct 9and the evidence says they aren’t), taking action won’t hurt anything except our wallets. If they are wrong, millions may die. Let’s be prudent.
[Poneke says: I do not make any assumptions at all, linear or otherwise, about the future course of global temperatures, let alone think that climate change is bogus. It is patently obvious that climate changes. But don't start me on Armageddon scenarios, please!]
April 10, 2008 at 12:21 pm
‘The Heartland Institute, which sponsored the event, gets a whopping 5 per cent of its revenues from oil companies. The sum of all honoraria paid for more than 100 technical talks was less than former United State vice-president Al Gore gets for one talk. We’re not oil-company shills’
Yanno again a cursory google indicates that not all the truth is told here. While the Heartland Institute may get but five per cent of its revenues from oil companies…it seems that the good Dr gets quite a bit from the oil companies himself. Both privately and with other organisations he is involved with.
Ordinarily this wouldn’t trouble me.One can take an article at its face value and go from there.
But this one does seem to be about funding…
April 10, 2008 at 12:28 pm
1. the climate change activist challenged the veracity or completeness of information in an article.
2. The article was corrected.
3. The activist tells other activists to challenge media articles that are similarly flawed.
I think that’s letting Abess off a bit lightly. There was an implied threat in or-I-just-might-post-all-this-off-to-some-forums part. She seems like a pompous jerk.
I just can’t get excited about the actual changes made to the story.
April 10, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Because of your weird climate change denial, I’ve just about stopped reading this blog. Perhaps you and Garth George can get a mutual echo chamber.
Its a pity that you are a climate denier poneke, because people you are trying to impress over the Ellis case are going to easily be able to dismiss you as a climate denying crank with a bee in your bonnet, mark my words.
April 10, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Steve Withers wrote: “taking action won’t hurt anything except our wallets”.
As if that isn’t a big deal. I have a suggestion, you could lead by example and spend whatever you feel is necessary to reduce your, and the country’s, carbon footprint, while I keep my money in my pocket. After all, why should both of us be stung if you’re wrong?
April 10, 2008 at 2:06 pm
A picture tells a thousand words:
http://tinyurl.com/5a3cek
I’m comfortable with those who are skeptical of scientific results. I hope they go on challenging results and assumptions. Science can cope.
But in the meantime, I applaud those who are acting on what the results appear to say at this stage. The world should be alarmed.
I’m less impressed with “toms” above, who tries to draw some sort of connection between an opinion on the Peter Ellis case, and an opinion on Climate change.
Apart from the world getting hotter by the day because of the inaction of the NZ Justice system in correcting the Ellis case fiasco, there is otherwise NO connection.
[Poneke says: Thank you for that graphic, Brian, which is a most useful one, one I had not seen, and from a reliable source.]
April 10, 2008 at 2:37 pm
That choking, spluttering sound was me, I’ve posted that graphic several times on this site.
[Poneke says: I have to admit that I have not followed every link you have posted, Andrew, as you post so many of them and I do not always have time! I know they are all equally worthy.]
April 10, 2008 at 2:59 pm
What’s wrong with the earth warming?
That’s a serious question, by the way.
April 10, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Blair
I think the concern might be that it could quickly make life very very uncomfortable if not impossible for an awful lot of people and other species. SOmething like that anyway.
April 10, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Well sure, if it happened immediately. But we are talking about 100 years.
100 years is plenty of time for people, and species, to move further away from the equator if they don’t like the heat. Plenty of time for crop production to adjust lattitutes. And frankly, if 1 billion people in India can already survive forty degree summers, I don’t think it’s going to be all that much of a stretch for the rest of us.
Add to this the evidence that carbon dioxide levels follow warmer temperatures, not lead it, and deindustrialisation as a response to temperature rises would simply be madness.
April 10, 2008 at 4:12 pm
“What’s wrong with the earth warming?”
I agree it’s a sensible question, here’s some opinions:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/sixdegrees/videos_6.html
you’ll find links to the effects of other levels of warming on that page.
I’m personally not convinced about exactly what the consequences would be of 3 or 4 or 6 degrees of warming would be other than a sea level rise and polar amplification this means an average rise of say 3C would translate to a rise in polar temperature of perhaps 6C.
If there were just 3 billion people on the planet in 2050 I don’t think AGW would cause too many problems, with the 9 billion expected by then disruptions to agriculture could have dire consequences.
Claiming that “carbon dioxide levels follow warmer temperatures, not lead it” is like saying “eggs do not come from chickens as chickens have been observed to hatch from them.” It’s a positive feedback.
April 10, 2008 at 4:27 pm
‘Claiming that “carbon dioxide levels follow warmer temperatures, not lead it” is like saying “eggs do not come from chickens as chickens have been observed to hatch from them.” It’s a positive feedback.’
Indeed.
Fearlessly poached from a study done by the AUT…
‘The fact that increases in carbon dioxide concentrations lag increases in temperature following glacial periods, does not suggest that carbon dioxide is not an important driver in warming the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide unquestionably acts to amplify the effects of a warming period and it is estimated that carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are responsible for approximately half the warming from glacial to interglacial periods’
April 10, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Poneke,
Jo Abess (and a great many others) are giving us an example of “Post Normal Science”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science
And here it is explained in more detail.
http://tinyurl.com/6mmrwj
JC
April 10, 2008 at 5:58 pm
The sense of rage and fury behind many of these posts is something new in my experience of reporting on such matters. And I have been reporting on science and technology for over twenty years - first in my Speculations column in Metro and then in the NBR and other publications.
In 1982 I was the only person from the Southern Hemisphere to be invited to give a presentation to the Biotech ‘82 conference in London - the first international biotechnology conference ever. And I did. It was well received. ON the way back I was invited to give my presentation to the advisory board to Genetech in Boston. Afterwards I learned that the board included four Nobel Prize winners in microbiology and genetics etc. No one ever then attached me for not being a scientist and when I have reported on other technologies no one has ever said I have no right to do so because I am not a practising scientist in that field. But now, whenever I report on something to do with climate change and am invited to attend a conference I am subject to all manner of abuse. My thirty years or more spent in funding and managing high technology projects has given me some skills in communicating science issues and of course analysing the science itself and the quality of the scientists. (The real experts can always explain what they are doing in plain English.) And in all that time I have never been subject to the abuse and insults I have since I first got involved in this subject. I now know what it must have been like to be a heretic.
April 10, 2008 at 6:03 pm
OMG! I just hate bullies like that… scambag!
Take them on! Kick ‘em!
But there are many bullies around who just bully their way whatever they want. In Singapore, we have many online bullies as well; and even our education sector issued threats of legal action just becos you blog about your bad experience.
This climate of bullying can only change if people around the world are as concern as yourself.
Thumbs up, and away for you!
Scope.
April 10, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Steve Withers posted:
“Underlying this is (apparent) presumption by Poneke and others that global temperatures in a warming world will rise in a linear fashion. That is likley not an appropriate presumption in a chaotic system like global weather. It will be more a case of two steps forward (a couple to one side or maybe another) and one step back…..but the TREND over time is onward and upward while CO2 continues to build in the atmosphere”
The point that every “denier” is potentially making about the flattening of temperature is precisely that it is not linear, it may in fact be cyclical. And hence it will move from a “trend” of postive growth, to a flattening off, followed by a decline.
I’m not a climate scientist, but have done a lot of statistics. You don’t just put a trend line through a bunch a data, if you have 10 observations in a row below the forecast predicted by your trend line, its an inadequate model.
April 11, 2008 at 8:47 am
Will this be news when the stats go the other way?
I’m of the belief that the world has it’s own cycles and what is being made of the current weather cycle is just hay for the “Climate Activists”.
It’s been warmer before. It will be warmer again. It’s been colder before. It will be colder again.
I’m following the money and from where I stand, the argument ought to be what we can do to “weather” (pun intended) the changes because we certainly can’t stop them.
April 11, 2008 at 9:32 am
A typical if rather extreme example of “passion”:
So Owen,
The MSM doesn’t care about your silly little pseudo science club. Now your mate is dead, all you got is kiwiblog. At least they think you are smart. How cares, in ten years time, when anthropogenic climate change is accepted by everyone, you and your mate Gray will be dead and rotting… good riddance.
My question is, why do you sop spreading lies.
Much love,
Allie.
Augie Auer is dead, I had an aortic dissection two years ago, and Vincent is 86.
Charming.
[Poneke says: There are some sad people out there, Owen. I often wonder how they can drag themselves out of bed in the mornings, so awful is the world they inhabit.]
April 11, 2008 at 9:48 am
What can we say?
Allie’s an idiot.
April 11, 2008 at 10:46 am
To prescribe the term “fascist left” by Fairfacts to those critical of global warming “deniers” is over the top, is it not ? The answer would be yes using the generally meaning of the word fascist but to use this terminology with another alternative meaning accepted and described in the Cambridge Dictionary Online, as “someone who you do not like because they try to control other people’s behaviour”, the answer would be, I would have thought, no. This alternative definition of fascist behaviour surely can be prescribed to Jo Abbess when she has advocated (http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/ealing.htm) unilaterally for compulsory control and with a suggested hint for the introduction of draconian measures, when she says:
“I expect it could take ten years to get effective Climate and Energy policy into the legal framework of this country. However, it might take less time to start Climate Justice proceedings in an international court. My campaigning has to be focussed on influencing a faster move from voluntary change to institutional policy: ten years might be too slow, considering the fact that the Siberian permafrost is already melting. Everything I do from now on, making changes in my life, in my work and in my words, has to bring the future forward.”
While her activities in successfully bullying and threatening the BBC’s Roger Harrabin to alter his storey with all her manipulative e-mail comments confirming her previous eco-fundamentalist activist stance, it leaves the BBC as a casualty of its own failure to exercise due impartiality. Even now, with the use of a BBC politico, it is attempting too pour oil on the troubled waters over which it wishes to navigate without running aground. I would anticipate, Poneke, that if you indeed receive a reply to your request it’s more than likely to involve a politically correct version of events and neglecting the input of Jo Abbess leaving this part of the embarrassing debacle hanging in the air.
There is a certain degree of similarity between Jo Abbess’s behaviour resulting in the BBC’s acquiescence to her manipulative demands, and the recent UN Human Rights Council taking a direct Orwellian swipe at freedom of expression, resulting from a manipulative section of that body, where the council has instructed its “expert on freedom of expression” to report to the council on all instances in which individuals “abuse” their freedom of speech, which in effect will suppress it instead.
April 12, 2008 at 2:31 pm
It is very heartening that the AGW debate at last seem to be getting some semblance of balance in some parts of the mainstream news media. Until now, it has been pretty much one way traffic in the AGW alarmists direction.
The fury of many alarmists at this development is revealing. What are they afraid of? Anyone who is interested in getting to the scientific truth of the matter should welcome the debate’s finally getting to this point. The problem that bullies typically have, is that when people don’t react as required, they have no clue as to how to get their points across. This leads to the extraordinary invective of some AGW alarmists. How ironic that the likes of Allie purport to care about people. I suspect that this is all too common in the left-green movement. Its supporters correctly sense that they may be about to lose their main current justification for promoting their world view. Socialism may be discredited once again. Quel horreur!
April 13, 2008 at 12:29 am
Until now, it has been pretty much one way traffic in the AGW [sic] direction.
That would be the exact opposite of balance in the media - the balance as far as the science goes is exclusively in the direction of general agreement with AGW. (don’t know about alarmism though)
Malcolm,
Notice how the National Post story you just linked to is agreeing with AGW? Instead, it is making a case for a course of action in response to AGW.
“It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages … We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.”
Did you notice how for “natural phenomenon” they said “throughout the ages” and not now?
“… many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future”
Which means what? Sounds more like a vague mention of the ups and downs of any trend (yes, I view this as an upward trend, and ups and downs in the sense that velocity can accelerate and decelerate) . It also does not suggest ANYTHING about a decelerating in greenhouse gas emissions, and in fact argues to stop attempts at such reductions.
April 13, 2008 at 5:50 pm
The lack of balance in the mainstream media on the AGW issue that I was referring to is this: most days, we get an item in the NZ Herald, on radio news or TV (both local and international) about some impending calamity that is attributed to “man-made CO2 climate change/global warming”. These items are always delivered uncritically, with no mention of the very real possibility that if additional carbon dioxide turns out to have very little, if any, effect on climate, then it will all have been a colossal waste of time and money . It is not surprising that most people have been taken in by the AGW hoax, given this relentless propaganda onslaught.
Cracks are starting to appear though. The NBR reports the issue fairly and Garth George of the Herald has finally called AGW the hoax that it is. I’m no fan of George’s but he is the only Herald journalist with the wisdom and courage to get on the correct side of this issue.
[Poneke says: With all due respect, I would not take anything Garth George says even with a grain of salt. The Herald does not publish him as any source of factual information. He is there to wind people up. If anything accurate appears in anything he writes, that is probably a mistake.]
April 13, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Jack: “It is not surprising that most people have been taken in by the AGW hoax…”
Those who chant the mantra: ‘hoax, fraud and swindle’ in relation to AGW have no interest in the science because they have already made up their minds that the science is fraudulent.
Once you’ve gone down the road of ‘hoax, fraud and swindle’ you have ruled out the dispassionate weighing of the evidence, because you have already been decided that all evidence is tainted since it originates with lying, cheating climate scientists.
In that case, rational discussion is impossible.
April 14, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Brendan
Well I’m still willing to give it a try: Please show me the evidence that dangerous global warming is caused (or will be caused) by humans adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. hint: output from computer climate models are not evidence
April 14, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Jack: “Please show me the evidence that dangerous global warming is caused (or will be caused) by humans adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.”
Basic physics. CO2 absorbs longwave radiation from the surface of the planet; that causes the atmosphere to heat; heat is energy; the increased energy in the atmosphere leads to a more unstable climate. An unstable climate is bad for human welfare.
Human civilisation, especially food cultivation, has developed over the past 10,000-odd years within a relatively narrow climate range. Any change will come at a cost. For us it will just be dollars, but for people living on the margins it may well be their lives.
No, it’s not a done deal. But I pay a small proportion of income to insurance companies against events that may never happen. The actuaries tell me the risks. In the absence of any better knowledge, I believe them. Same with climate scientists.
April 15, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Poneke: I tend to agree with you about Garth George, but one should give credit where credit is due. Even the most ignorant will be correct occasionally. Those rare events are worth celebrating. I also should have mentioned that Fran O’Sullivan seems to be quite open to the probability that AGW is all a gigantic hoax. Overall though, the NZ Herald is like most of the mainstream media here - their collective snouts are fully submerged in the AGW alarmist swill trough.
Brendan: You haven’t provided any evidence. I’m aware of the scientific theory underlying the AGW hypothesis. Unfortunately (for AGW alarmists) there is very little experimental evidence to support it. No experiments have been done that verify or quantify the predicted warming in the presence of water vapour, which is the main “greenhouse” gas in the atmosphere by far. Then there are the facts that the CO2 radiation absorbtion effect is logarithic, which means that most of the warming that could happen has already occurred at much lower CO2 concentrations than we have today; the matter of saturation, which means that most of the outgoing IR radiation that might have been absorbed by additional CO2 already has been absorbed; that the IR absorption bands of CO2 mostly overlap with those of water vapour; that the absortion effects are probably reduced and/or mitigated by clouds; that there may be postive or negative feedbacks from any additional warming that does occur, owing to the changed amount or type of water vapour, cloud formation and or precipitation patterns. All in all it is a very complicated situation, not suited to over-simplified computer models or the conclusions that are derived from them. As for the insurance metaphor - it’s a matter of balancing the risks with the costs of the insurance. The risks (or rewards) of any warming that may (or may not) occur have never been properly quantified. On the other hand, we are spending right now billions of dollars of mostly OPM (other people’s money) to pay for this “insurance”. This seems like a very bad deal to me, especially as there are other real and pressing problems, such as lack of clean drinking water and food shortages for a billion or so people. How ironic that the current food crisis has arisen in large part because of the insane biofuels plolicies that could not have been introduce without the support of - you guessed it - AGW activists. One more thing - the earth’s climate has never been stable of long periods of time. It has mostly been ice ages, with relative short periods of warmer “interglacials” such as the one we are in now. You had better hope that we are not heading for the next little ice age. That would be a problem.
Cheers
April 15, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Jack, the IPCC rates the likelyhood that the majority of recent warming is a result of increased GH gases at better than 90%, their conclusions are based on physics - not models. I doubt you can come up with anything to dispute their calculations.
Why is it so important to you, and others who think like you, that they’re wrong?
The truth is that you want it to be wrong not because you have any serious reason to question the science but because the conclusions that the science leads to don’t suit the future you want.
There is a genuine belief amongst many on the political right that it’s all a greeny-socialist plot based on a “hoax” (the term you used) to impose their political ideology on the world.
Blaming others is a common reaction when situations occur that people just don’t want to accept, so here’s a link to help you understand why you have reacted to AGW in the way that you have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coping_(psychology)
Best wishes.
April 15, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Andrew W: Sorry but you are incorrect. The IPCC’s “projections” (they don’t call them predictions- that would be stretching things - even for them) are based on “what if” scenarios of their computer climate models, which are all simplistic and flawed. They cannot explain the past climate, let alone predict the future. The 90% likelihood claim was arrived at by a group of self and government appointed political representatives - not all of them scientists. The views of many “expert reviewers” of the IPCC who do not agree with the controlling groups conclusions are routinely suppressed and/or ignored. The entire raison d’etre of the IPCC is to perpetuate the myth that dangerous global warming (euphemistically referred to as climate change) is happening or will happen. Dr Kesten Green, a New Zealander, has assessed the IPCC’s forecasts. This shows that they (the IPCC) seemed completely unaware of scientific forecasting research methods. His audit indicated that 81% of established forecasting principles were violated, invalidating their forecasts. (His submission was recently made to the Finance & Expenditure Select Committee that is considering the Climate Change Bill).
I’m interested in the scientific truth and establishing good policy from that. Your implications of psychological motives are offensive. Seems like “projection” to me - projecting your own faults on to others. No need to look that up in Wikipedia.
April 15, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Jack, thank you for your comments.
You state “Sorry but you are incorrect” but then fail to explain how you think I am incorrect as you totally fail to address the points I’ve made.
As you allude to, the IPCC uses the term “projections” because these projections are based on various emissions scenarios which are uncertain, whereas the term “prediction” implies certainty. It should be noted that the range of likely global temperature for any given emissions scenario is much narrower than that across all the scenarios the IPCC uses.
You state “The 90% likelihood claim was arrived at by a group of self and government appointed political representatives - not all of them scientists.”
This is simply wishful thinking on your part, a result of your nonscientific convictions, the figure is based on known science and mathematically calculated uncertainties, note that this 90% figure is for the rise over the last half century.
Your statement : “The views of many “expert reviewers” of the IPCC who do not agree with the controlling groups conclusions are routinely suppressed and/or ignored.” is frankly laughable given your attack on the integrity of the IPCC scientists. Do you actually know what an “expert reviewer” is? It’s someone who asks for a copy of the draft. Anyone can be an IPCC Expert Reviewer - all you have to do is ask.
Here is Dr Kesten Green’s “paper”:
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf
As you can see it was published in Energy & Environment, a publication produced with the sole purpose of getting papers published that reputable publications won’t touch.
Looking through the “paper” I can understand why you yourself don’t link to it, what with it making claims like:
“Unaided judgmental forecasts by experts have no value.”
“Agreement among experts is weakly related to accuracy.”
“When there is uncertainty in forecasting, forecasts should be conservative.”
You conclude your comment with “Your implications of psychological motives are offensive.”
This is of course the classic response of someone who is sensitive because they have such psychological motives, claiming they’re agrieved but being totally unable to refute the point.
You have no reason to question the IPCC conclusions, other than those psychological ones I’ve outlined.
April 15, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Jack: “You haven’t provided any evidence.”
Your question was: “Please show me the evidence that dangerous global warming is caused (or will be caused) by humans adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.”
For obvious reasons, the chemical properties of CO2 feature as the starting point. The main lines of evidence include: a sustained trend of global warming; greater warming at the poles; greater warming during the night; less rainfall in continental interiors; more turbulent weather along coastlines; treelines moving toward the poles; decreasing arctic ice.
“All in all it is a very complicated situation, not suited to over-simplified computer models or the conclusions that are derived from them.”
Given that we have only one very large earth, it’s not possible to conduct multiple real-life experiments. The models are the nearest approximation to running such experiments.
Sure, the climate is a very complicated system, but it’s not wholly chaotic, and given the complexity the computer models have made some quite significant predictions, for example that surface warming would be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere.
One of the more interesting model predictions was warming of the troposphere, which was not showing up in the satellite measurements, until it was shown that the satellite analysis was faulty. When corrected, the warming predicted by the model was confirmed.
That said, models are not meant to ‘predict’, rather they offer scenarios, but the scenarios have been reasonably accurate to date.
April 16, 2008 at 11:42 am
Andrew W: You seem to have a pretty emotional attachment to the subject yourself. It seems that you are commited to promoting the AGW hoax in either a professional or enthusiastic amateur capacity. I’m not interested in entering into a slanging match with you. What I am interested in is helping open-minded readers to recognise the hoax for what it is. Now that the scientific debate is starting to get going in earnest, people will be able to reach their own conclusions. Given the last 10 years’ lack of temperature increases while atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to increase significantly, the IPCC’s “projections” look ever more improbable. The cracks in the monolith that is the AGW hoax are multiplying. Its just a matter of time until it crumbles into dust. In the meantime, people are starving because of, among other things, insane biofuels policies and unusually cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere. We could do with some “global warming” right now.
The IPCC is losing its grip:
quote:
A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance. “This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,” said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
=================
And it (the IPCC) is corrupt:
Most of the media articles you will see refer to reports issued by the IPCC. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, a political body appointed by the UN. Many of the 3,000 members of this panel are not scientists, but simply political appointees. The few real scientists on the panel have disputed the panel’s findings but have been silenced by having their comments deleted from the reports.
Several of these scientists have asked to have their names removed from the IPCC report, but have had their requests denied. Several have actually sued the panel to have their names removed, but few have been successful.
The actual fact regarding consensus on this issue is that there are many more scientists who dispute the claims regarding global warming than there are who support them.
The IPCC reports rely on a particular computer model which projects temperature changes due to “positive feedback” reactions in the atmosphere. The IPCC report claims that as CO2 levels rise, temperatures will also rise causing more water to be evaporated into the air. Since water vapor is by far the leading greenhouse gas, increased water vapor is supposed to accelerate the global warming process in a runaway feedback loop. The actual scientific data, however, do no support the positive feedback model. The basic methodology used by the IPCC cannot be supported by actual data so the panel relies on the news media to filter the news that reaches the public. This article is an attempt to set the public record straight.
The link below will take you to a petition, signed by over 17,200 scientists who think that the currently available scientific data do not support the conclusion that global warming is anything other than a naturally occurring cyclic phenomenon.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming
There is much evidence that negates the belief that man is causing warming. It was going on before him and will go on after him. So will ice ages and cooling trends. Man is a small piece of the puzzle and while he may have some effect it is so small, less than 1/2 of one percent of total gases and causes from nature that many scientists are coming to realize the fallacy that was being pushed by politically aligned scientists.
Jack
April 16, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Jack said: “Given the last 10 years’ lack of temperature increases while atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to increase…”
That’s been covered more than adequately on this site over the last few days, zero increase in global temperatures for a decade following a strong El Nino has happened about half a dozen times in the last 40 years, the trend has remained upwards despite these variations.
Jack: “In the meantime, people are starving because of, among other things, insane biofuels policies and unusually cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere. We could do with some “global warming” right now.”
Me, you, “Adam Smith”, and PhilU all agree that biofuels don’t make a lot of sense. Pointing to a regional cold spell in America as evidence against GW is as dumb as pointing to a warm spell somewhere else as evidence for GW.
Jack: “A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares.”
I ‘m not wasting my time addressing claims by the Hudson institute on a so called “analysis” that wasn’t peer reviewed and they don’t link to.
Such surveys that have been peer reviewed point overwelmingly towards scientists supporting the mainstream view of AGW.
Jack: “Most of the media articles you will see refer to reports issued by the IPCC. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, a political body appointed by the UN. Many of the 3,000 members of this panel are not scientists, but simply political appointees. The few real scientists on the panel have disputed the panel’s findings but have been silenced by having their comments deleted from the reports.”
This is simply untrue, if anything political input has worked to make the summary for policymakers more conservative as to the effects of AGW than the view of the scientists in the various chapters of the reports.
Jack: “Several have actually sued the panel to have their names removed, but few have been successful.”
A lie.
Jack: “The actual fact regarding consensus on this issue is that there are many more scientists who dispute the claims regarding global warming than there are who support them.”
Another lie.
Jack: “The IPCC reports rely on a particular computer model which projects temperature changes due to “positive feedback” reactions in the atmosphere.”
AGW is based on radiation physics not models, many models (not one) are used to verify that what we see happening is what is expected from the physics.
Jack: “Since water vapor is by far the leading greenhouse gas, increased water vapor is supposed to accelerate the global warming process in a runaway feedback loop. ”
The idiot who wrote that doesn’t know what he’s talking about, no climate scientist claims we’re heading for “a runaway feedback loop. “, a positive feedback and a runaway feedback aren’t the same thing, not even close.
Jack: “The actual scientific data, however, do no support the positive feedback model.”
The most important positive feedback is the water vapour feedback, this feedback is TOTALLY supported by the peer-reviewed literature, there are less important feedbacks, most notably cloud, over which the size of the feedback is uncertain, but still positive, the only area where the sign is in doubt is with tropical low-level cloud.
Jack: “The link below will take you to a petition, signed by over 17,200 scientists who think that the currently available scientific data do not support the conclusion that global warming is anything other than a naturally occurring cyclic phenomenon.”
Actually the petition makes no such claim, you should read it.
And the “scientists” are anyone with a Bachelors degree or equivalent with some basis in science, there are literally millions of such people in the US.
Earth natural GH effect warms the planets surface by 33C over what it would otherwise be, we have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 35%, there’s a good chance we will double CO2 concentrations by the end of the century. The WV feedback is real basic physics, increase air temperature and you increase airs ability to support more WV, that’s not disputed, so the science points to a doubling of CO2 leading to less than a 10% increase in the GH enhancement of surface temperatures.
Jack, your repeated reference to AGW as a “hoax” leads me to suspect that you think that there’s a deliberate strategy by people in the IPCC to trick humanity into believing AGW is a lie, if that is the case there really isn’t any point in continuing our discussion as that would make you a conspiracy theorist, in my experience such people are flakes who will believe any madness as long as it supports their lunatic preconceptions about the world.
Kind regards.
April 17, 2008 at 10:36 am
Andrew: You are stretching things when you claim that the last ten years of no significant warming are all because of one big El Nino. What happened to that “strong” greenhouse gas CO2 and its postive feedback from water vapour? Is it taking a holiday?
There has been climate change since the earth formed an atmosphere. These changes were not significantly influenced by natural CO2, let alone human produced CO2. The Vostok ice core records indicate that CO2 concentration increases naturally after the atmosphere warms up.
Please provide references to properly controlled and measured physical experiments that verify the CO2 and water vapour greenhouse effect at different concentrations. Preferably ones that have been carried out in the last 50 years. I think that you will find that there have been very few, if any. Without such experiments, the hypothesis will never be promoted to theory, which means that it will remain on the level of somebody’s whim.
The corrupt IPCC is perpetuating the hoax of dangerous man-made global warming. It should be subjected to a proper audit by independent, non-government appointed scientists. I am confident that such a step would lead to the IPCC’s quick demise.
Also please don’t try to put words in my mouth. I am not a conspiracy theorist. The history of the IPCC will be told by others in due course - and it will be sordid.
The dangerous man-made global warming hypothesis is much less than worthless, because it is set to cost society trillions of dollars. Pity.
April 17, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Jack, as I pointed out the “no warming in ten years” has been thoroughly covered on this blog over the last few days, including the queries you raise, I’m not wasting my time explaining it again.
Nobody disputes that climate changes naturally, the fact you imagine they do is simply a product of your denialist indoctrination.
Regarding the “warming leads CO2″ argument, are you really so naive as to think that scientists have overlooked this, that they ignore it because it’s too hard to explain??
You tell me what the initial driver is that pushes the global climate from glacial to interglacials every 100,000 years, it accounts for about half the increase in temperatures with increasing concentrations of GH gases accounting for the other half.
Here’s the link with references:
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf
The remainder of your comment simply confirms my worst fears about your motivations in questioning AGW, with this sentence especially telling: “The dangerous man-made global warming hypothesis is much less than worthless, because it is set to cost society trillions of dollars. Pity.”
You deny the science because it doesn’t suit you, you and other AGW deniers are like the fabled King Canute.
Have a nice day.
April 18, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Andrew W: Now you are calling me a “denier”. This suggests that you are nasty as well as wrong. An eco-nasty perhaps? (that’s a rhetorical question: you don’t have to answer it). Somehow I doubt the sincerity of your “Have a nice day”. Never mind.
I did not say that you deny natural climate change. Your point eludes me. My point is that man-made carbon dioxide has never been a significant factor in climate change and it never will be.
I don’t know how many scientists have overlooked that fact that warming of the atmosphere precedes CO2 concentration increases. Why is that relevant? It is an historical fact and it also falsifies the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas global warming hypothesis.
I also don’t know what drives natural climate change - nobody does. That’s why scientists study the subject. The science is in its infancy. What has become clear is that carbon dioxide has got little, if anything, to do with it:
Icecore data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since
around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical
data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.
Another important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere
have fallen over the past two decades.
Which brings me back to my original point: recent data shows that despite the IPCC’s predictions to the contrary, world temperatures have not risen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen from an average of 365 ppm by volume to 385 ppm by volume. So what if this has been discussed on this blog at great length? The facts remain for all to see. If that upsets you - tough.
You seem to be intent on questioning my motives. For the record (again): I am motivated to get to the scientific truth of the man-made global warming debate and to base good policy on that. The current AGW othodoxy is based on flawed and self-serving pseudo-science. Here is an appropriate metaphor: Think of me as a little boy (one of a large and growing number) who is telling the world that “the emperor has no clothes”.
ps: King Canute was actually demonstrating to his courtiers that he had no power over nature. He was a much wiser man that the AGW alarmists of today.
[Poneke says: Love your PS, Jack.]
April 18, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Jack, presumably you label me as nasty because, like Poneke, you link “AGW denier” to “Holocaust denier”, well, if it makes you happy to go through life imagining that I’m likening you to Holocaust deniers have fun doing so, but in fact I call you and your brethren AGW deniers because I see your condition as similar to that of people who are in denial about having an addiction problem, in your case it’s carbon.
Like other addiction deniers you work hard convincing yourselves that the rest of the world is out to get you and to destroy you by taking your precious from you, if I was aiming to be pejorative I’d use “crank” as Gareth at HT does but I don’t because I find it too … pejorative.
However, I’m an accommodating fellow so, if it makes you happy I’ll abandon the term “denier” and instead liken you to a well known addict driven mad by his addiction, and instead refer to you and your ilk as “Gollums”.
“I don’t know how many scientists have overlooked that fact that warming of the atmosphere precedes CO2 concentration increases. Why is that relevant? It is an historical fact and it also falsifies the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas global warming hypothesis.”
So, don’t know what the initial driver for the warming is during the glacial to interglacial transition, why not make the effort to learn something for yourself and look it up?
Your argument that increasing CO2 concentrations can’t increase global temperature is like arguing that eggs cannot come from chickens as chickens have been observed to hatch from them.
“I also don’t know