Bishop Hill Fred Pearce and the glacier story
Jan 19, 2010 Climate: WG2 Climate Resistance has a fascinating post examining the role of New Scientist journalist Fred Pearce in the glacier story and wonders whether such a prolific writer of climate scare books can really have been unaware of the error for all these years.
It is inconceivable that as prolific a writer on the climate as Pearce can be unaware of the influence of his error. It is more than obvious that Pearce has a political agenda that exists prior to ‘the science’ he reports. This prior-ness is something we have emphasised here on Climate Resistance as fundamental to understanding the phenomenon of environmentalism: the disaster scenario is the premise of environmental politics, not the conclusion of environmental science. Once this premise is accepted, so to speak, a priori, the conclusion becomes a given; the ‘science’ is almost immaterial, it merely gives numbers to what is already given.
Reader Comments (6)
Climate Resistance also had an excellent article
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2010/01/spiking-copenhagen.html
predicting that “scepticism” or “denial” – call it what you want – will become more organised this year”. And commenters at Harmless Sky are giving a good press to the Lord Lawson Think Tank,
http://www.thegwpf.org/
This is important, since Climategate and an impending election mean that Britain and its peculiar legal and political procedures are going to be central to the Global Warming debate. In Britain, unlike in the USA, the debate is not (yet) totally polarised politically.
There’s only a half dozen active sceptical sites in Britain, to my knowledge, and Gaia knows you’re a disparate and eccentric bunch (praise be). Get together and surprise the mainstream media with some typically British Pythonesque gesture. Your country needs you.
Fred Pearce is an alarmist of little integrity. I'm sure he knew full well the scientific and political value of his article.
He probably had a heads up that this particular spurious claim was about to be blown away, and acted to preserve his "reputation".
He is very sensitive to criticism;)
The Hindustan Times is reporting that Hasnain, the man behind the false claim, is now saying that he was misquoted (and that he was aware he'd been misquoted, but didn't bother to correct it, since it was "just a news report", not a scientific journal (which doesn't explain why he didn't bother to correct it when it made its way into the IPCC report, or into the grant application to the Carnegie Foundation!).
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Misquoted-says-man-behind-glacier-goof-up/H1-Article3-499568.aspx
The Global Warmistas have all the hallmarks of a socialist if not communist elite. It's all about power. Where in most countries their politic influence have been diminished, they now concentrate on Climate and Environmental activism. By that way they can control power without even being elected. Not for nothing the Dutch Minister of environment (a former environmental activist) mentioned that a Global Government has to be established in order to enforce measurements against Global Warming in the wake of the Copenhagen debacle.
IPCC > UN > Global Government.
Science is not important and truth is the first vicitim in the war that's called Global Warming.
It's not too late, especially after the CRUcial emails, but it's like the Bodysnatchers movie: "They're here already! You're next! You're next, You're next...! "
The important fact from this story is that the IPCC doesn't do peer review. The IPCC used an article from 1999 in 2007. One would have thought that some new research would have been done since then, but it seems that the IPCC doesn't understand that the role of science is to duplicate research, not just merely report as a fact the writing of a single scientist. I mean if that is the standard, then room temperature Fusion is a scientific fact.
Surely given the insight into the inner workings of the warmist core group we have been given in the Climategate emails it's no surprise that no effort has been made by anyone to correct anything publicised anywhere?