Thursday
Feb032011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Could be a long wait
Feb 3, 2011 Climate: other Media I was just wondering when all those signatories to the Ofcom complaint about the Great Global Warming Swindle were going to launch a similar action now that we know that the BBC has misrepresented the science of global warming in the Horizon programme the other day. As I remember it, the people involved were not political campaigners but were concerned with climatology being correctly relayed to the public.
Can anyone recall who was involved?
Reader Comments (40)
Does this help? In the reaction in the British media section, it mentions a few names.
"When hell freezes over" contains an assumption of severe cooling which would be an anathema to such people. A snowball's chance in hell is I think therefore the politically correct way of communicating the probabilities of swift reaction.
Whatever, hats off to Kellow, Montford and Bindschadler - for admitting his error, fair and square. Next target I hope: Paul Nurse
Just read the Wiki link and got a right old chuckle:
Somebody should write a (polite) letter to Dr Lockwood asking for his opinion on the trick to hide the decline.
ben santer was concerned with the media "doing the diligent, painstaking reporting that would have been necessary in order to improve public understanding of a complex scientific issue"
"Somebody should write a (polite) letter to Dr Lockwood asking for his opinion on the trick to hide the decline."
Feb 3, 2011 at 12:12 PM | Bishop Hill
Oh Lord, not this again. I get so bored of one ambiguous line from a personal email being held up as though it somehow negates all the independent results being simultaneously produced by climate scientists all over the world.
We don't know why tree ring records and thermometer records diverge from the 60's. It's really annoying, and slightly undermines tree ring data. However, prior to this period, the tree ring data is a pretty good match for thermometer readings for the period where we have both, and it's importance in reconstruction means it would be foolish to completely disregard it.
However, one thing we do know, is that modern methods are far better at measuring temperature than tree rings, so are evidently preferable. Thus we end up in a situation, where a long term graph uses tree rings for much of the historical data, both where measurements agree, and then disregard tree rings when an unknown problem shows them to be clearly wrong.
To repeat, it's annoying, and it's not perfect, but that goes, quite frankly, for a great deal of science amongst all the disciplines. It is however the best we have, and has been replicated multiple times independently and in different ways, which can lend it some weight. Until something as good, or better appears which tells a significantly different story, then we use the graphs we have.
There's no conspiracy. There's no deceit. 4 enquiries have shown that. Regardless of what you think of them, if there was actual purposeful distortion, or untruths, it would have come out. There wasn't, so it didn't.
This continual obsession with these emails, and trying to hold them up as though they negate an entire scientific discipline, doesn't speak well of those who do it. It also seems desperate, and as though you are trying to avoid dealing with the actual science.
I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but it's time to drop the hacked emails and focus on science. The world has moved on.
Change the 'slightly' to 'totally' and I'm with you.
My issue with the horizon programme was where Bob Bindschadler gave the impression that all the temperature data NASA has come from satellite records
Bob Bindschadler: So here we can really visualise a lot of datasets, and this is the one I really like, because it shows us how scientists are getting their data. I mean NASA does a lot of stuff in the cosmos but we have half the satellites just looking at the Earth, just looking down at the Earth. Every 90 minutes, every one of these satellites orbits the Earth and collects data, sometimes in a wide swath, sometimes in a narrow swath. This is our bread and butter, this is where all the information comes from.
Paul Nurse: So how many of these satellites are there up there?
Bob Bindschadler: There's about sixteen, seventeen, eighteen satellites right now, just that NASA operates...
Richard Drake.
Why do you claim it totally undermines tree ring data? Prior to the 60's, the match is good. What's wrong with the data at this point?
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that ... You can't just ignore bits of data that you do not like."
As the Bish says, it's terrible isn't it when a documentary maker truncates a data series, but it's really all fine and dandy when the Hockey Team do it and then splice on a different series? "You can't just ignore bits of data that you do not like." Well, apparently you can if you are on the Hockey Team, or support the Hockey Team. They've been fighting like cornered rats and spoilt brats to be able to continue to promote falsehoods.
ZDB is typical, unable to see the folly of their position. "We don't know why tree ring records and thermometer records diverge from the 60's. It's really annoying, and slightly [bit of an understatement!] undermines tree ring data...a long term graph uses tree rings for much of the historical data, both where measurements agree, and then disregard tree rings when an unknown problem shows them to be clearly wrong." That's junk science, pure and simple.
Zed the only thing any of us knows is that we don't know very much about what drives our climate. As for splicing data from disparate sources, that has no place anywhere in science period.
The only thing that gets boring or more correctly tiresome is having to explain this point over and over again to those who should know better.
Zed
If you want to talk about the divergence problem, can I direct you to the conversation I had at Flay's site. I'm still monitoring this for updates so I'll see what you write and I'll respond if you have anything to add to what has been said already.
Everybody else
No discussion of the divergence on this thread please.
ZDB: In any thousand-year reconstruction there's a period where the 'match' is good because that has been used for calibration. And there are 850 years where there's no match, where we are meant, according to Mann and friends, to trust tree rings to tell us the temperature. Common sense is needed at this point. How many years of the 850 are you prepared to concede where tree rings give us no idea at all of temperature? The divergence post 1960 is enough for the whole exercise to be futile until we find some much better proxies for temperature. Welcome to real science.
Zed trees and their rings, as with all plant life respond to multiple inputs such as temperature, precipitation, CO2 concentration, nutrient levels, and perhaps differing levels of cloud cover. It is incorrect to attribute changes in tree rings to temperature alone and this has what has led to the modern day divergence.
Tree ring data has been matched up with proxy temperature data, which has a degree of uncertainty. Even more uncertainty exists for historical precipitation data and CO2 concentration. We can make an educated guess but not be adamant we are correct.
If when we apply our tree ring data to modern instrumented data and it doesn’t fit, there follows we have and issue with our theory so it follows we cannot rely on our historical correlation. This is simple stuff they teach in school, except climate science school.
Sorry, Bish, only saw the edict after.
The world has moved on?? wrong! this is the same debate that one side is still refusing to have !
I never get bored of it. Just like I never get bored of this either:
@Zed.
I made my post because the Paul Nurse program specifically addressed the "hide the decline" and supported the idea that you could "just ignore bits of data you do not like".
Well, I find it confusing
apparently the most bother TGGWS had from the judge was it treated a couple of people unfairly. well i know dick lindzen only featured fleetingly (unfair treatment of the subject in itself imo) but he was quoted as saying 'we could all deal with 5 degrees increase' just as the AGW debate was being introduced. i checked and he argued its hyperbole to suggest 5 degrees increase would be the end of life on earth. it came across as simply 5 dgrees is ok. now thats unfair treatment. (i know its a small point for an hour long film but it riled me)
Just googled Great Global Warming Scandal rebuttal, and some bloke called Bob Ward popped up!
This pdf of the complaint has the participants listed at the start in their various roles: http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint.pdf
This may help a little:
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/
God bless Martin Durkin
mark, both very good points about Lindzen on Swindle, thanks. The most basic reason Durkin should have listened to Lindzen more IMO is his insistence that energy (and thus temperature) fluctuations at the earth's surface cannot be explained mono-causally - either through CO2 emissions, solar activity or anything else. Having begun very well Swindle went off course pushing a solar hypothesis. Mind you, it ended up superbly, with the focus on those without electricity and the claim of a black African economist and Patrick Moore ex of Greenpeace that the global warming alarm was an attempt to rub out the 'African dream'. Worth putting that front and centre if there's another film, in my view. And using Lindzen (and McIntyre and McKitrick on the hockey stick) much more.
It was very noticeable how the critics of Swindle, almost to a man, ignored the deep concern for the poorest motivating Durkin. The only exception I could find was John Houghton, who admitted the film might have an important point about this, though with a "Funny how nobody pointed that out to me all those years at the IPCC" feel to me. But the response seems to have been the 'climate reparations' route promoted by Gordon Brown, which is strongly argued against by Paul Collier, who says if we're going to do anything we should do a flat carbon tax globally. Anyhow, hats off to Durkin for attempting to put this vital matter on the agenda. Next time he just might succeed.
Zed
Bishops has exchanged views with Paul Dennis who works for the UEA - see here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/1/29/paul-dennis-on-the-trick.html
A German fellow named Büntgen seems to have solved the divergence problem with different, middle European data:
http://www.buentgen.com/graphs.html
That's going to take some digesting Alexej. Thanks for the link.
Alexej, yes thanks for the link, but I prefer to use thermometers rather than trees for gauging historic temperature trends - http://oi49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg - I think even with the likelihood of significant UHI contamination in the last 40 years thermometers give less margin for error than slices of old trees.
As the graph's originator (NikfromNYC) asked on WUWT yesterday: How can history be a Hockey Stick if single site thermometer records failed to show even a hint of noticing?
it would be nice if martin durkin gets involved in this.so far in all these years of climate science GGWS is to my knowledge the only program that seriously shows the sceptical point of veiw.given the latest ratcheting up of the hype from the alarmist bbc and all the cold is warm rubbish in all forms of media around the world it will be important that no gaffes are made in any new documentary.as we have seen the alarmist programs can get away with anything.this will not apply to anything sceptics make .hopefully Ch 4 would air it as they did the previous 1.as for Zed i believethis poster to be a young lady (forgive me if i am wrong here) nicknamed Zebeedee on james delingpoles blog whom no one here will be able to enlighten .i wish no offence she may be very nice but i wonder if there is about to be another onslaught of these types of posters have noticed some familiar names popping up this last week on various blogs including WUWT.i hope not they have made any participation on bookers or delingpoles blogs virtually impossible regards neil
"as for Zed i believethis poster to be a young lady (forgive me if i am wrong here) nicknamed Zebeedee on james delingpoles blog"
Feb 3, 2011 at 4:57 PM | neil
You're wrong, and I forgive you. I post under this name and this name alone. And even that only happens here and on one other site.
And to return to the original subject of this thread, Andrew is pointing out that people are quick to point out the flaws in the opposition, and blind to them amongst their own.
This is the pot calling the kettle black to the nth degree. This wholly one-way scepticism is practised here on a massive scale. I've seen claims like 'there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas' go completely unchallenged. I've seen pure speculation presented as fact, the ad hominem attacks upon climate scientists and public faces are a disgrace, and I've seen actual campaigns to behave dishonestly go completely unremarked upon.
Until you get your own house in order, you have no right to comment upon others for doing the same thing, especially when it is to a much lesser degree.
Zed
The 'other side' is no better, and were you to look at it clearly, you would see that.
Consider how absolute rubbish about 'drowning Bangladesh' is never questioned - just as one example of 'environmentalist' misrepresentation.
Or how about the '300,000 deaths from climate change a year' lie?
Yes. How about that.
At least no-one hear goes around accusing the Western world and all who sail in it as being essentially complicit in murder (take a look at the Global Humanitarian Forum's Human Impact report).
BBD
If the Global Humanitarians jumped off a cliff, would you do the same? It's a heated and important topic, which has brought out bad behaviour right accross the spectrum. That doesn't mean it's right. Telling teacher that the other person started it is a pretty weak justification for one's behaviour.
Regardless of what anyone else has done, Andrew has pulled out the double standards card, seemingly unaware that it's pretty well a way of life in his own back yard.
And in yours, Zed.
Stop being so self-righteous ;-)
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/2/3/bobs-strawman-at-cojo.html
“Bob Ward is commenting on the thread below Fiona Fox's piece on the Horizon programme. So far, two gross misrepresentations of sceptic views. First this:To claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas is to promote a demonstrable falsehood, not just a point of view.Has anyone claimed that it isn't? Not to my knowledge.”
Neither have I come across any serious contributor to this debate that claims CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. The extent to which it contributes to any greenhouse effect is a legitimate matter for debate.
Without some empirical evidence that CO2 is a major driver of temperature most global warming theory can only be speculation. Perhaps you can quote me a couple of specific examples of reputable sceptic blogs presenting speculation as fact.
I agree. There is no place in civilised debate for describing those who disagree with you as "deniers" (with all that word's connotations) or suggesting that you might feel inclined to offer violence to a fellow scientist just because his view differs from yours, or even to denigrate serious research by casting doubt on the ethics or sanity of the researcher.
You really must take your blinkers off, Zed; there's a whole colourful world out there just waiting for you to smile on it.
Sam the Skeptic
To be fair to Zed, she stopped using the D-word when BH asked her to, and has tried various alternatives.
I have occasionally urged commenters here to avoid demonstrating Godwin's Law themselves.
:)
"as for Zed i believethis poster to be a young lady (forgive me if i am wrong here) nicknamed Zebeedee on james delingpoles blog"
Feb 3, 2011 at 4:57 PM | neil
You're wrong, and I forgive you. I post under this name and this name alone. And even that only happens here and on one other site.
http://news1.ghananation.com/international/19278-patients-on-statins-to-lower-cholesterol-at-less-risk-of-arthritis-study-finds.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1253919/Iceberg-size-Luxembourg-plunge-Europe-cold-winters.html
http://news2.onlinenigeria.com/world/33929-Drink-drive-limit-may-slashed-save-lives.html
http://www.perspicacious.co.uk/content/private-pensions-are-hit-%C2%A3100bn-final-salary-scheme-change-will-affect-millions
Ummm...which "one other site" would that be? Maybe you should be more careful about the factual accuracy of your statements before you start challenging others.
Phil R
The other site being the Daily Mail. Perhaps you should have been a bit more careful to check your sources before posting. All the other sites you list are ones which upload Daily Mail articles and comments sections en masse - collecting me in the process. Every posting on the other sites can be traced back and found under the original comment on the Daily Mail.
Whoopsie!
Nurse in the Horizon programme read a long statement of the "concern" of some of the NAS scientists. The emails between these same scientists were reported in the Washington Times last March and showed them in fact "concerned" about the impact of Cimategate and conspiring to control the media agenda so as to minimise its impact.
No doubt they involved Nurse in this conspiracy and we can take the Horizon programme as being his "contribution" to the cause. An FOI request for the Royal Society emails at that time might be a good idea?
Has anyone criticised both for their failings or have most restricted themselves to moaning about the one from 'the other side' whilst quietly ignored the weakness of the one they agreed with?