My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« STUDY: Antarctic ice collapse linked to newly-discovered wave patterns, not melt | Main | NIWA's David Wratt defends this? »

Comments

KimW

What staggers me is this report - admittedly a newspaper article and possibly a clever PR'spin', but THIS is the person responsible for all that data convincing Governments to spend Billions on Climate Change!!

Quote" The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’Unquote.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0fVgo9VzL

Falafulu Fisi

Gareth from Hot Topic should concentrate on writing excellent children's bedtime story books because that's what he's good at, rather than keep appearing on TV for interviews on AGW as if he is an expert or a climate scientist.

He (Gareth) has continued to make comments as a put down to NZ Climate Science Coalition's scientists as if they're perhaps irrelevant or their credentials are not to be respected since they're not in par with (non) climate-scientist as Gavin Schmidt, Mike Mann, etc,... but there he is on TV and media giving opinions on AGW as if his are more relevant (or knowledgeable on the subject) than the local scientists that he critiqued.

R2D2

Surely during the period the world went from glacial to inter-glacial and then to the younger dryas younger dryas and then to the early Holocene experienced far greater rates of change than 0.13C per decade.

Gareth claims all sorts of unbelievable facts, such as when he said the world had never not been in an ice age when CO2 was above 300ppm (was it 300?) that show a complete contempt for history on a geological scale.

Good on you Ian for fact checking this one.

Ross

I note in the BBC interview that Jones agrees with the cooling in recent years but says it is too short a period to be significant. But at the end of the report on the interview on the BBC website he is happy to trot out the latest revelation that the supposedly Jan. 2010 has been the warmist Jan. on record. I presume he finds this grand averaging to be significant. Is it any wonder that the public are rapidly disbeliving these guys on the whole AGW issue.

Bob D

I find Hot Topic quite quaint actually. It's unusual to find people still willing to man the megaphones on global warming nowadays. Most of the more intelligent scare-mongers are already slipping quietly away. Hot Topic, on the other hand, appears to want to go down with the ship. I'm not sure if that's laudable or not...

CM

After "Yes, but only just" Jones says:

"This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

I think this makes it much less sensationalist than only quoting the first four words.

Interestingly the period since 1998 (which deniers say is cooling, and you make a big deal of in Air Con) has made almost no difference at all in the longer trend since 1975 (0.166 versus 0.161).

As he says, the 1860-1880 period is only 20 years and isn't as reliable.

I don't see much significance in anything Jones says in that interview. No 'great revelations' of any note.

I note you haven't highlighted that in 2006 he was given an editor's award from Geophysical Research Letters for conscientious and constructive reviewing. Another inconvenient fact....

CM

>>>I find Hot Topic quite quaint actually. It's unusual to find people still willing to man the megaphones on global warming nowadays. Most of the more intelligent scare-mongers are already slipping quietly away. Hot Topic, on the other hand, appears to want to go down with the ship. I'm not sure if that's laudable or not...<<<

I've looked at both HT and this blog for the same length of time, and at HT they actually discuss the science. Not so much here. Nobody is really interested here.

It's funny that the same people who throw out the 'science is settled' meme as often and as loudly as they can are the same ones who want to essentially claim 'AGW is bogus' as being setttled. And that if you tell yourself enough times, it will become so.

CM

Jones also says:

"When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period."

So without those natural cooling factors, the overall warming would presumably have been greater (than 0.166).

Bob D

CM: "It's funny that the same people who throw out the 'science is settled' meme as often and as loudly as they can are the same ones who want to essentially claim 'AGW is bogus' as being setttled."
Well, according to Phil Jones the science was never settled anyway, even though the alarmists have trumpeted that sound-bite continually for the past 4 years. Funny he never mentioned it before. I suspect a public announcement two or three years ago by the head of CRU that the science was not settled, the debate was not over, and that there has been no significant warming for a while would have made headlines. Of course now it's too late - it's no longer news. Everybody knows about these things today.

"And that if you tell yourself enough times, it will become so."
I think nobody needs to tell themselves this to make it happen. Look around you, the house of cards is collapsing. The scam is over. Carbon markets are crumbling. Every day there are new revelations of shoddy science behind the IPCC. Even the tame MSM are beginning to attack.

There will probably never be another attempt at a global treaty on the scale of Copenhagen. John Key said recently it was a waste of money to attend. Will he go to the next one? I doubt anyone will. Politicians have been made to look like fools by a handful of politicized scientists. I suspect they won't be forgiving behind closed doors. In public though, they'll just move on.

In the pubs, workplaces and sports grounds the alarmists are now being ridiculed. The term 'global warming' is usually followed by a laugh. I hear it all the time.

Contrast that with even a year ago.

nat

"Look around you, the house of cards is collapsing."

Maybe it's you who should be looking round. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

Bob D

nat: "Maybe it's you who should be looking round. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/"
Eh? I'm not sure why you feel that pointing me to a 'he-said-she-said' discussion at Deltoid about the acknowledged lack of correct references in the AR4 document authored jointly by WWF, Greenpeace and the IPCC negates the collapse of AGW. But thanks anyway (I think).

CM

>>>even though the alarmists have trumpeted that sound-bite continually for the past 4 years.<<<

For about the 10th time so far on this blog, please provide the quotes with links. You could be the first one to not ignore than request Bob! Think of the fame!

>>>Funny he never mentioned it before.<<<

Specifically what did he not mention before?

>>>...and that there has been no significant warming for a while....<<<

Why would they have said that? Based on what?

>>>Look around you, the house of cards is collapsing. The scam is over.<<<

Denialism is built on a house of cards (it's highly contradictory). Climate science continues to build on itself slowly but surely. We've learnt nothing in the last year that undermines the central planks (yeah it's got planks, and quite a few).

>>>Every day there are new revelations of shoddy science behind the IPCC.<<<

Not at all. Please tell me what is incorrect in this analysis. If you're right, I'll agree.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/

>>>Even the tame MSM are beginning to attack.<<<

They've always provided a 'false balance' in their climate reporting. And now they've got sensationalism and they are feeding off it and feeding it. They're a forcing AND a feedback if you will.....;-)

Another post with no science at all. All vague accusation and political nonsense. Yawn.

CM

>>>Eh? I'm not sure why you feel that pointing me to a 'he-said-she-said' discussion at Deltoid about the acknowledged lack of correct references in the AR4 document authored jointly by WWF, Greenpeace and the IPCC negates the collapse of AGW. But thanks anyway (I think).<<<

Nothing to do with references Bob. The issue is a journalist pushing a story out which knowingly conceals and mispresents views of people very relevant to the story.

Three separate sources told Leake that the IPCC report was correct. And Leake did not mention any of this, instead he simply lied and wrote that it was "bogus".

The only people who think AGW is 'collapsing' are those that never 'believed' in it in the first place.

CM

>>>the AR4 document authored jointly by WWF, Greenpeace and the IPCC negates the collapse of AGW. But thanks anyway (I think).<<<

You should do some research about the A4 document. You seem to be just listening to the deniers. You could start with finding out what the Working Groups consist of and what they do. I.e.

Working Group 1 (WG1), which deals with the physical climate science basis, as assessed by climatologists.

Working Group 2 (WG2), which deals with impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems, as assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc.

Working Group 3 (WG3) , which deals with mitigation options for limiting global warming, as assessed by energy experts, economists, etc.

The Amazon forest dieback issue is just a case of the IPCC not listing the primary sources. The author of the primary source material (Nepstad) confirms that the IPCC got it right.

This is just blatant desperation. All accusation and no substance. Just like with the emails.

CM

(sorry, AR4 document, not A4 document - but please, by all means, take that cataclysmic error as more evidence that all climate scientists will soon die horrible deaths)

Bob D

">>>...and that there has been no significant warming for a while....<<<

Why would they have said that? Based on what?"
Based on the lack of warming. You know the one, the lack of warming that it was a travesty they couldn't explain? (How's that for a convoluted sentence!)

Also, see above:
"QUESTION - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

JONES: Yes, but only just."

Ian Wishart

CM, the Amazon forest claims were dealt with in Air Con:

There’s room for massive scepticism too on a claim that 85% of the Amazon will disappear because of global warming this century.

In another garbage in/garbage out computer modelling scenario, researchers at the UK Met Offce Hadley Centre punched in the numbers and told the mini-Copenhagen conference:

“The impacts of climate change on the Amazon are much worse than we thought,” said Hadley’s Vicky Pope. Essentially, a temperature increase of two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures (tail-end of Little Ice Age) would kill 20-40% of the Amazon jungle this century, while a 3⁰C rise would take out 75% and 4⁰C would destroy 85%.

“The forest as we know it would effectively be gone,” said Pope.

But is Hadley Centre right? Based on past performance one is tempted to laugh out loud, but let’s take a more serious look. For a start, the Amazon jungle survived the medieval warm period with no adverse effects.

Secondly, increasing CO2 levels lead to increased vegetation growth, because CO2 is a food to jungles (that’s one of the reasons we use greenhouses in agriculture, to increase the yield from plants as a result of higher CO2). So it’s counterintuitive for Hadley to claim that rising CO2 levels are bad for forests per se.

Thirdly, the Hadley computer model used suggests the increasing temperature will reduce rainfall, and it’s the reduced rainfall that will dry the Amazon out and kill it. We’ve already seen scientific studies in this book that have measured far higher levels of precipitation (rain and snowfall) than computer models had allowed for, so it is by no means certain that the Hadley Centre predictions on rainfall changes will be the correct ones.

I’m an investigative journalist, not a climate scientist. I’m only reporting the conclusions of others and drawing inferences from their work. But it seems I was on the right track.

The icing on the cake in destroying this “key message” from mini-Copenhagen came from a global warming believer in the New York Times. Reporter Andy Revkin’s DotEarth blog for the NYT describes apocalyptic claims like this one as “climate porn” and warns it will backfire when the public realise they’re being played for suckers.

“On Thursday, an e-mail message was distributed to a host of Amazon forest experts and to a journalist by Yadvinder Malhi, an Oxford University biologist who is focused on the Amazon and climate. He questioned the Amazon findings presented at the meeting, and decried the resulting media coverage:

“I must say I find it frustrating that the gloomiest take on news gets such a big profile. This is based on one model, and that model has flaws (especially its temperature sensitivity that seems too great (David Galbraith’s work), and its rainfall that seems too low (our PNAS paper PDF 21)).

The danger is that that such apparent bad news makes all the efforts to conserve the Amazon forests worthless (why bother saving them if they are already doomed?), and encourages disengagement and hopelessness rather than action. If that conclusion was based on solid empirical science then so be it, but when such a story goes out on a pure model study (not yet peer-reviewed) with significant imperfections, it may do a lot of damage in the real world.”

A colleague of Dr. Malhi who attended the meeting responded by saying several scientists there were engaged in “damage control.”

It is certainly true that development deforestation of the Amazon (including Soros and others clearing South American jungles to plant biofuel crops) will hasten the drying out and death of the forest, for the same reasons that Mt Kilimanjaro is suffering...

End of extract. IPCC has clutched at straws. Whether dodgy WWF documents or some oik's screwed up computer model, the end result is the same - slap bang science designed to promote the "it's worse than we thought" meme.

Bob D

CM: "For about the 10th time so far on this blog, please provide the quotes with links. You could be the first one to not ignore than request Bob! Think of the fame!"

It isn't a direct quote. Someone may have said it, I don't know; nor do I care.

But it's used as a summary of a reaction sceptics received whenever they asked legitimate questions. Like it or not, it'll go down in history (along with 'only peer-reviewed sources can be valid' and '2,500 scientists') as a tactic used by the AGW crowd to try to close down debate before it even began.

CM

>>>Based on the lack of warming. You know the one, the lack of warming that it was a travesty they couldn't explain? (How's that for a convoluted sentence!)<<<

Wow, you've swallowed that distortion as well. It's all or nothing in the binary community huh....

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published. Trenberth expresses frustration that observation systems are inadequate to track the flow of energy. It's not that global warming has stopped. We know global warming has continued because satellites find an energy imbalance. It's that our observation systems need to be more accurate in tracking the energy flows through our climate and closing the energy budget.

If you actually read the paper you'd realise that what he meant was something like

"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"

Skeptics and deniers use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email.

CM

>>>CM, the Amazon forest claims were dealt with in Air Con:

There’s room for massive scepticism too on a claim that 85% of the Amazon will disappear because of global warming this century.<<<

Ian, you know full well that 'Amazongate' isn't about that at all. The issue is the IPCC document had the WWF document as a source instead of the actual primary soouce (Napstad's papers). Jonathon Leake has been found out again, but people are continuing with his memes regardless. And since then two others (Jonathan Gregory and Simon Holgate) have come out and said they have been badly misquoted in his article. One of them wrote that the experience with Leake had made him “reluctant to speak to any journalist about any subject at all”. I don't blame him. Why would any climate scientist talk to a journalist these days? what would be the point?

The comments to this entry are closed.