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

« ETS Campaign heats up, unlike climate | Main | Breaking news: Chinese security attack NZ politician in NZ parliament »

Comments

Andy

The following document provides a similar story

“Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination”

http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf

Jonno

Off topic, but now apparently you are a denier if you don't accept the output of computer models as evidence of AGW

http://hot-topic.co.nz/sceptics-face-yawning-credibility-gap/#comment-14317

Seems that poor old Sam has finally lost the plot.

Andy

Latest from the NZHerald

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10653753&ref=rss

Emissions scheme could cost NZ up to $5b


Andy

Breaking news: 6 billion dead within a year

http://hot-topic.co.nz/arctic-sea-ice-projections-6-billion-dead-within-a-year-it-really-is-grim-up-north/

Andy

Climat : les effets pervers des crédits carbone

This was posted by Richard North.

Interesting angle on the carbon fraud

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=0&u=http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2010/06/25/climat-les-effets-pervers-des-credits-carbone_1378610_3244.html&sl=fr&tl=en">http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2010/06/25/climat-les-effets-pervers-des-credits-carbone_1378610_3244.html&sl=fr&tl=en">http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=0&u=http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2010/06/25/climat-les-effets-pervers-des-credits-carbone_1378610_3244.html&sl=fr&tl=en

AcidComments


Of Interest:

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/behind-the-science/7220-new-global-warming-scandal-consensus-on-sun-is-one-expert

Andy

The Amazongate story seems to be heating up a bit.
Despite the Sunday Times "apology", there appears to be no peer reviewed research that supports the 40% reduction claim by the WWF.
The story is taken up at EURef here

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/06/where-is-evidence.html

and Bishop Hill

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/27/more-amazonian-knockabout.html

Given that WWF look to gain up to $60billion in carbon credits from the REDD deal, this story might drag on a bit longer.

Andy

Ian,
Your book gets a mention, along with Hockey Stick Illusion and The Real Global Warming Disaster, in this draft review here

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/Illusions-2.pdf

The original article is here
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/29/hsi-in-ecos.html

The reviewer is Peter Taylor, author of Chill

Andy

I have just received my copy of Chill from Amazon, along with the "Wind Farm Scam", and a couple of books from Melanie Phillips.

Should turn me into a well rounded curmudgeon!

Andy

I have to share this with you. I think the death cultists at Hot Topic have finally lost it.

It is quite exciting to watch an ideology die

"Dappledwater July 9, 2010 at 2:17 pm

Yes Bryan and while the deniers like Curry and Pielke Jnr equivocate, the world continues to get warmer and warmer. The last 12 months are the warmest ever recorded according to NASA, yet it doesn’t rate a mention in the mainstream media.

As far as that moron Fred Pearce is concerned, I’ve read New Scientist for decades, but cancelled my subscription after all Pearce’s nonsense kept appearing in the magazine"

Judith Curry a denier?

These guys are truly off the planet. SciBlogs is a science blog???

CM

"It is quite exciting to watch an ideology die"

Ironic statement given the near-death of this place....

CM

"As you may be aware, a conservative blogger called Richard North is currently threatening to sue the Guardian, as a result of an article I wrote criticising his claims that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had "grossly exaggerated the effects of global warming on the Amazon rainforest".

Until this point I hadn't paid him much attention, but following his complaint I've been reading his blog more regularly. Earlier in the week I came across this. It might give us some insight into the motivation behind his campaign against the European Union and, perhaps, against the IPCC and its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.

Under the heading "Liar, liar!", North ponders whether lying "is an in-built part of human nature". He then goes on to say the following:

"What would be really interesting in this respect would be an examination of cultural attitudes to lying – why, for instance, Indians such as Rajendra Pachauri are practiced liars and why others find it difficult to accept that they are being lied to, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence."

In the comment thread, someone calling himself bennyboy writes "anything east of dover, not to be trusted!"

North then responds: "There are a lot of Kermits to the west of Dover ... to say nothing of the Dagos and sundry others. These are to be trusted?"

Useful, sometimes, to know what you're up against."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jul/09/monbiot-richard-north-eu-sue

"Peter Taylor's claims that the planet is in fact cooling down have been given prominence by the Daily Express and other outlets, though they are unfounded in science. His book Chill has been a hit in the denier community. Taylor has also claimed to have uncovered toxic dumping by venturing into the astral realms. He has speculated that a Masonic conspiracy was tuning into his thoughts, and had sent a "kook, a ninja freak, some throwback from past lives" to kill him. He has also maintained that plutonium may "possess healing powers, borne of Plutonic dimension, a preparation for rebirth, an awakener to higher consciousness"."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jul/14/monckton-john-abraham

You guys sure do keep some interesting company.

Ian B

Taylor's claims in "Chill" are all referenced.

You can follow them up, or you can follow the Monbiot path of ad hominem arguments.

It doesn't read like a wacko book to me.


However, if you prefer your science to be sanitised by PR companies, then please feel free.

(Google Network PR NIWA)


Ian B

There is quite a good review on harmless sky

http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=220

Peter Taylor answers most questions in the comments too.

CM

>>>Taylor's claims in "Chill" are all referenced.<<<

So are Monckton's. Doesn't mean that he's being honest, or accurately respresenting what is being referenced.

>>>You can follow them up, or you can follow the Monbiot path of ad hominem arguments.<<<

Providing quotes from Taylor himself is an 'ad hominem' argument? I don't think so. The issue is credibility.

>>>It doesn't read like a wacko book to me.<<<

Again, it's easy to string a whole lot of references together to make an argument. The ability to do that bears no relationship to whether the argument makes sense.

>>>However, if you prefer your science to be sanitised by PR companies, then please feel free.

(Google Network PR NIWA)<<<

Ah yes, all part of the big conspiracy?
Yawn. Really? I mean, come on. Where is your evidence of this?

CM

A quote via that review:

"This is another classic example of senior scientists publishing in the peer
reviewed literature and commenting on issues entirely outside of their field,
such as carbon dioxide and atmospheric physics, without reference to other
entire fields of relevant climatology, seriously compromised by
compartmented approach or political correctness in the face of
‘controversial’ science.”

Um, pot/kettle much?
The irony is so thick you can see it.

Ian B

Some more irony for you then, CM.

Barry Bickmore, of "Monckton rap sheet fame"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_R._Bickmore

Barry Robert Bickmore is a professor in the department of geological sciences at Brigham Young University (BYU). He is also a Mormon apologist, having written Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Ben Lomond: FAIR, 1999) as well as several articles that have been published in the FARMS Review.


Mormon apologetics:

Mormon apologetics is the field of apologetics directed toward Mormonism. It is the systematic defense of Mormonism against its critics. The term Mormon apologetics also sometimes refers to scholarly efforts to defend a particular view of orthodoxy within Mormonism against dissenting or divergent views

-- Sounds like a perfect man to spread the warmist argument.

Ian B

And as for the "conspiracy".
network PR were employed by NIWA to handle questions regarding their science. In particular from Rodney Hide.

Their case study page was pulled from the website but is still available on Google cache

http://bit.ly/cC8ldQ

"The clear and consistent response policy for media and Parliamentary Questions resulted in a reduction of the number of questions, almost to none in recent weeks"

So why don't they just answer the questions? What have NIWA to hide?

CM

Hahaha, nice work.
He's still more qualified (in terms of qualifications and position) than Monckton. He's also not alone in pointing out the chronic errors in Monckton's narrative.

Unfortunately for you and the others here, the 'warmist argument' doesn't rely on the arguments of any individual person or paper. It isn't a house of cards like you'd like to believe. It's more like a jigsaw puzzle. And we now have a considerable number of pieces on the board.

"....an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change".

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract

This is consistent with other studies. Doran and Kendall-Zimmerman (2009) surveyed 3,146 AGU members and found that 97% of actively publishing climate researchers believe that “human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.” A recently published study, Rosenberg et al (2010), finds similar levels of support when surveying authors who have published during 1995-2004 in peer-reviewed journals highlighting climate research.

That's against a handful of contratrian scientists and a few more non-scientists like Monckton and Taylor. If they are right, where are their published papers smashing down AGW theory?

It's actually irrational for a lay person to side with the contrarians. Inevitably you just end up relying on crazier and crazier conspiracies.

CM

>>>So why don't they just answer the questions? What have NIWA to hide?<<<

Come on, you can't possibly be that naive. Scientists aren't public relations experts. The initial response to climategate demonstrated that they need to get better at communicating and responding to challenges (irrespective of whether the challenges have merit).
If they spent all their time responding to people, they wouldn't actually be carrying out any science. And then people like you would just abuse them for that.
Hiring a communications company to assist them in responding (and knowing when to bother) infers nothing about 'hiding' anything. Again, try and step back from your conspiracy spiral for a moment.

The comments to this entry are closed.