Bishop Hill Media reactions to Yamal
Sep 30, 2009 Climate Media reaction to the Yamal story has been rather limited so far. I'm not sure whether this is because people are trying to digest what it means or whether it's "too hot to handle". Here's some of the stories I've come across:
James Delingpole (Daily Telegraph blog) How the global warming industry is based on one massive lie.
Chris Horner (National Review online) Mann-made warming confirmed
Andrew Orlowski (The Register) Treemometers: a new scientific scandal.
Tom Fuller (San Francisco Examiner) New data questions claims of accelerated warming
None of the global warming supporters in the mainstream media have gone near it. The reaction of the Guardian - to delete any mention of the affair from their comment threads - has been extraordinary. Even bloggers from the other side of the argument won't go near it. The only exception seems to be the legendary Jo Abbess. James Delingpole is most definitely misguided.
Reader Comments (16)
If I might, I would like to suggest a related topic for another post.
Dendros select certain trees that match local climate pattern to "calibrate" their reconstruction. Then match the calibration samples with older samples to extend the proxies back in time. In my mind there are two major issues with this standard approach.
First, the trees selected for calibration do not always maintain their correlation with local temperature as illustrated by re-sampling of bristle cone pines by McIntyre and company plus the re-sampling by university of Arizona graduate student Abaneth (sp?)
Second, the assumption that older samples can be lumped together with the newer selected samples to extend the reconstruction is flawed unless the older samples can be calibrated in a similar manner. If not the noise just suppresses past climate events guaranteeing some hockey stick shape to the final results.
BTW excellent summation of the situation.
dallas
Here is what I tried to post on the legendary Jo Abess's blog. It was blocked:
Jo,
I am afraid it is you who is misguided. So far I have only read as far as your first 'point' about the growing band of sceptics. I'll have to stop you right there, Jo.
Did you not read the recent news from Cardiff University "UK climate scepticism more common"? The survey found that twice as many people as five years go think that climate change is exaggerated.
Similar surveys have found scepticism increasing in the US - according to Gallup, 41% say global warming is exaggerated, a record high.
I suggest readers start counting the number of days, weeks, month, years until the Yamal scandal of selective data appears in a BBC (British Broadcasting Corp.) news item. That organisation is so fixed on the "certainty" of global warming that it never broadcasts stories about scientific criticism of the claims. Stalin and Hitler could have learned a lot about censorship from the BBC.
Andrew Orlowski's piece for The Register (which you link) is particularly good, IMO. I didn't know the bit about Mann's 'mislaid' data appearing in a disc directory labelled 'censored'!
The level of censorship on the Grauniad's site is extraordinary. I wonder how many readers they've lost so far?
JamesP wonders how many readers the Guardian has lost. You can get an idea from the low level of comments on global warming articles at Guardian Environment. I hope to see a massive response from sceptics as soon as they publish a relevant article.
In the meantime, there’s an aspect which has been little touched on so far - the question of professional standards in British universities and research establishments, and in the scientific press and among science correspondents of the mainstream media. Congratulations to Delingpole, but this is really a subject for more weighty treatment. I’m wondering if someone like the Bishop offered an article - not to the Environment editor but to te features editor of a major newspaper - he might not find a sympathetic ear. Newspapers thrive on controversy - Man bites Dog, and all that. This is Mann bites dust.
Folks
I do not think this is that difficult:
1). Any scientist/(and by implication) journal worth his/its salt should insist, before accepting any new 'development', that all data and the methodology should be made readily available in as much detail as required by the wider community to verify said 'development'
2). Failure to adhere to the 1st principle above should mean the new theory is unacceptable/cannot be published
That such a simple rule is not in place says more about scientists and esteemed scientific jouranls than they will ever know.
I agree that Andrew Orlowski's article is exceptional in its detail and accuracy. The Yamal story is important in what it reveals about the scientific integrity of the persons involved.
Without Steve McIntyre's remarkable efforts we'd still be in the dark on this one. We should all publicly support his efforts to require the publication of data and methods used to reach scientific conclusions. These tools are part of the basic kit of science. It seems impossible that some climate scientists have been allowed to stray so far from first principles.
I have noticed that some of the commentator here misguided over here the points are not clear so far so they should stop here i don't want to say they are totally wrong but i am just believe that there is something wrong in this post.
I tried to post this on the JoAbbess blog. Couldn't do it for some reason. Jo claimed:
"There is no evidence of a 'growing band' of [Anthropogenic Global Warming] AGW sceptics, skeptics or deniers."
Evidence? There's lots of evidence...
http://wattsupwiththat.com
...has now surpassed 20 million hits. At the beginning of this year they had under 8 million hits. Most of their articles get between 100 – 500 comments [and there are 2 - 3 new articles a day posted]. How is your blog doing, by comparison to skeptic sites?
Other skeptics' sites are also doing very well, while realclimate is nothing but a small echo chamber, censoring all comments that dispute Gavin Schmidt's AGW agenda. [And kudos to you for not censoring contrary views -- something that is required for any blogs funded by George Soros, including RC, Tamino, climateprogress, etc. Glad to see you're not on the Soros payroll.]
And re: hockey sticks. Yes, the UN/IPCC is using lots of new hockey stick charts. But the granddaddy of all the IPCC's charts was Michael Mann's now discredited hokey stick chart.
The UN absolutely LOVED Mann's chart! It showed approaching disaster at a glance. They used it repeatedly. Until Steve McIntyre thoroughly debunked it. The Wegman Report to Congress subsequently confirmed McIntyre's analysis.
The Wegman Report killed Mann's hokey stick chart dead. The IPCC deleted it from AR-4. And you don't boot out something you love: they were forced to stop using it.
So now, the UN political appointees that fabricate their reports for policy makers have scrounged around to find other, equally bogus hockey stick charts. There are plenty around, like Hanno's, but none are as fabulous as the Mann chart.
The Yamal chart is another bogus hokey stick chart. It is thoroughly dishonest, as McIntyre & McKittrick have shown conclusively. By deleting just ONE tree, the Yamal hockey stick shows a completely un-scary chart. What good is THAT?
It's been disclosed that over the past decade alone, Keith Briffa has pocketed over a million dollars in grant money [£788,805]. That is an enormous incentive to fake the data, which is what Briffa essentially did. Had he not been caught fudging the data, the grant money would keep rolling in.
The fact that AGW skeptics are clearly in the ascendant is the reason that Congress is so desperate to pass a Cap & Tax law. If they wait too long, too many people will understand that CO2=AGW is a hoax.
I thought you might like to know that a couple of days ago I emailed the BBC website staff for 'The Green Room' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/green_room/default.stm) which claims to host 'environmental opinion and debate'.
I sent them links to Climate Audit's article on this topic and James Delingpole's blog comment, and suggest that, since global warming is such an important issue, they should definitely be discussing this story.
No prizes for guessing - no response to my email, and no discussion posted.
Has the BBC even recognised the *existence* of this issue?
This Hadley/Defra contract document shows the aims and objectives of UK climate science and how it is delivered. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=GA01012_6499_FRP.doc.
Contract cost £145,760,582
The Climate Prediction Programme was not an academic research programme; its work plan and deliverables was driven by Defra’s requirements for science to inform UK government policy on climate change mitigation and adaptation. As the policy requirements changed, so did the research programme objectives.
The report on the Economics of Climate Change published by Sir Nicholas Stern published in November 2006 relied heavily on the quantified probabilistic estimates of future climate change carried out in the Met Office Hadley Centre.
The Met Office will focus on research that contributes to UK government policy objectives and will communicate the results to government and the public. This will be done through leadership of the UK climate community, collaboration with UK and world-wide institutions and internal customer-focussed links within the Met Office.”
This approach to climate science starts with a conclusion and asks paid contractors to find supporting data and to attribute it to human influence. If you pay someone to do that, logic says they are going to find something, come hell or high water, (both are predicted!).
Global warming is out there boys and it’s due to humans. Go find it.
As I commented at Roger Pielke's blog, the most revealing fact in this entire fiasco is the fact that neither Gavin nor Briffa nor the whole chorus of Apologists Extraordinaire for All Things Global Warming has made any substantive response to the sensitivity issue raised by Steve McIntyre's analysis.
Instead, the response has been the obtuse and evasive reply of Briffa -- who said nothing to defend his study's reliance on what really amounts to 1 (!) tree -- dripping sophomoric sarcasm from Gavin (an utterly pathetic substitute for actual argument) --and the "straw man" tactic of quoting Steve out of context to make it appear he said something he did not.
If there is an actual, scientific defense of what Briffa did, I would sure like to see it. Otherwise all this alarmist howling and huffing and puffing over things Steve didn't actually say is completely irrelevant to those interested in hearing the truth.
And by the way, let us all not forget that had it not been for a suggestion by Bishop Hill himself, Steve might never have gotten the data that allowed him to expose the role of this 1 magic tree.
AGW ideology is not merely a hoax, or a conspiracy, or a fad. It is a symptom of the profound moral, ethical, and intellectual bankruptcy of Twenty-First Century science and society. Thus it is only fitting that the media should be enthusiastic participants therein.
I think I should also add that my attempt to start an e-petition to 10 Downing St requesting a public enquiry into academic standards and integrity at Hadley CRU was rejected as being potentially libellous!.
What's missing from science is scepticism. Having just seen round a secondary school science department and read their text books I can see how this happens.
The discipline of science is hardly taught in our state schools any more. Instead a sort of test of your ability to recant propaganda and talk about things replaces it.
I agree to your site because very information i hope do not stop your work.
Thank you.