Bishop Hill Climate cuttings 42
Nov 29, 2010 Climate: Cuttings As I noted last week, the BBC is doing a highbrow radio series on climate through history. It looks as though they are on a full-scale climate season (...again...) with the World Service doing what looks like a rather thinly disguised propaganda piece called "The Climate Connection 2010".
The Climate Connection explores a key question in the story of action on climate change: what's stopping us?
Australia's Jennifer Marohasy has a paper out looking at issues around Freedom of Information and environmental data, majoring on Doug Keenan's experiences with Queens University Belfast. QUB don't look to have come out of it too well.
Mike Hulme has a guest post at Klimazwiebel, calling on politicians to adopt the new "reality-based" language that Hulme himself has taken to using.
Lord Rees celebrated the 350th anniversary of the founding of the Royal Society, by sounding off on climate change:
The concentration of carbon dioxide is rising inexorably...the science is firming up and that tells us that there is a risk of serious climate change in the next 50 years.
He clearly hasn't got the message about talking about uncertainties. Oh yes, and he wants more money. (This was Lord Rees' last action as President of the Royal Society. He steps down today. I wonder how history will look on him?).
Reader Comments (13)
The paper by John Abbot & Jennifer Marohasy is not yet publicly available (and I was asked not to put it on the web). Following is a comment that I left on Jen's blog, which has not yet come up.
________________________________________________________________________________
Your article puts it well, I think, about how Baillie "felt a deep sense of personal ownership"—and that indeed was the main driving force behind QUB's reluctance to disclose the data. Several people had speculated that there was some secret information in the data that would conflict with global warming advocacy; such speculations were incorrect.
Having said that, the measurements were on floppy disks that were over a decade old; such disks rot. Hence my pushing for the disclosure perhaps saved the 40 years of research from being lost.
Also, some colleagues in Sweden have done some analysis of the tree-ring measurements, and this seems to suggest there might be some problems with how QUB did its tree-ring matching:
http://www.cybis.se/belfast/
Because of Baillie's possessiveness, QUB's work has never been independently scrutinized/audited, which obviously brings about unnecessary risks to quality.
As your article rightly says, QUB has still not released the locations. The tree locations are apparently not properly written down anywhere: there are just some brief notes; the researchers have the details in their memories—and there are seemingly only two researchers in the world that have those details: Baillie and a colleague at QUB, David Brown. And Baillie retired a couple years ago. I will be pushing to get the locations, especially now that I realize they could be lost forever. I really appreciate the discussion about locations in the section "Information on tree rings not in electronic format"—that might prove useful.
Page 180a has quotes from Mike Baillie and Rob Wilson expressing their positions of strong skepticism about using tree rings as temperature proxies. Those positions are strange for me, because I got the idea of using Irish oaks as a temperature proxy from Baillie, in 1997—
http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3900/b910.htm
—and in 2008, Wilson co-authored a paper claiming the oaks in south-western Scotland could be used as a temperature proxy—
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/all%20pdfs/Loaderetal2008.pdf
There is a lot more to all this. Your article's main point here though—"Our present view, on the available evidence, is that there are indeed uncertainties in the use of Irish oaks as temperature proxies …"—is definitely valid.
Page 181a rightly states "If the FoI legislation is to operate as intended, there needs to be a better understanding of compliance obligations and cultural change within universities". Based on what has happened since April, the QUB administration has had that change: their communications with me have been consistently helpful and cordial. Baillie, however, has not changed: he continues with his fabrications, including saying that I got his data before he had a chance to finish preparing it—even though almost all the data was gathered decades ago, and been the subject of many research papers, and Baillie is now retired. The THE published a credulous story partially based on those fabrications:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=412475
(see too my comment there).
UEA Vice Chancellor Acton has picked up on Baillie's theme and issued a press release with similar misrepresentations, (mis)citing the FoI Act and what happened with QUB:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/statements/FOIopinion
And Phil Jones gave an interview to New Scientist magazine in July, which published his criticisms of the FoI Act without doing any checking. The Times of London was going to publish a similar story: they checked with me though, and I detailed how all of Jones' criticisms were invalid—and the story never ran.
The last paragraph of your article seems to criticize Baillie for not previously speaking out about Mann's use of Irish oaks as temperature proxies. Baillie responded to that criticism in The Guardian on May 11th (the response is cited in your article). His response claimed that he was unaware that Mann had used Irish oaks, and pointed out that he is not a dendroclimatologist, but rather a dendrochronologist—and so he should not be expected to have been aware. Given Baillie's previous dishonesty, it is not certain that he should be believed, but his response is credible. I would give him the benefit here.
Just heard this on radio 4 at 1am, and was amazed at the simplicity of the thinly disguised propoganda, some choice quotes.
as the background image says;
"Greed"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00c1sw6/The_Climate_Connection_The_Climate_Connection_2010_The_Selfish_Ape/
"Ecuador have left a fifth of their oil underground ... as long as the international community pays half the value of the oil". "The government is doing so in order to show it's commitment to the rest of the world"
"the environmental benefits coming from the national park are 9.6 billion dollars, which are more than will be received by oil extraction"
"according to the stipulations of the trust fund ecuador has until the end of 2011 to collect at least 100 million dollars, so far since august spain and chile have contributed a little over 1 million dollars for one year only"
"while the project makes financial sense for ecuador it remains to be seen whether in these times of recession it makes sense for international and national donors to commit to this financial model"
Måns Nilsson deputy director of the Stockholm Environment Institute "there are so many questions about this ... how will future generations feel committed to this fund?"
"should we be paying Saudia Arabia to leave its oil underground?"
Måns "that's when it becomes a little bit tricky ....it's the negotiating position of the saudi's so we can pay them to maintain their income level, whilst maintaining their oil in the ground. Then suddenly it doesn't become so palatable"
gave up at that point..
one more:
" so this was about changing the level of industry"
Meanwhile the WWF supported by Canon (another supplier to be added to my list of banned along with Dyson and Twinnings) fabricate some more AGW theories from no evidence at all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/8168213/Polar-bears-spotted-swimming-with-cubs-on-back.html
Here is a made up headline...
Britsh Armed Forces Chief of Staff demands Nato invades Iran
If ever came out with this, the front pages of the Telegraph, Independent and especially the Guardian would demand his resignation. International diplomacy would overheat. Armed forces as paid servants of a democracy do not have a voice in that democracy.
So what about this...
Scientists: 'world should press on without US in climate change deal'
The world should progress towards an international deal on climate change without the US, scientists have suggested, as talks kick off with little hope of the superpower agreeing to cut emissions.
And these are British scientists at that. Paid servants of a democracy?
And just in case you cannot spot the problem with that real headline... here is a piece from the article...
The US cannot commit to a legally-binding deal because it would be impossible for President Barack Obama to get any legislation cutting emissions past the Republicans in Congress.
Pesky democracy getting in the way hey? Anyone who says climate science is not corrupted only needs to look at the front page Telegraph (I mean the Telegraph? not even the Guardian) headline.
Perhaps scientists should concentrate on firming up their evidence. Democracy is not perfect, not even close, but the alternatives are far worse. Politics is not a common room tribal debate.
Cancun climate change summit: UN considers putting mirrors in space
You should realise how this works. Pachuri will be looking for employment after the next report. And as has been proven by other "senior" players in this game, you can guarantee he will pitch up as a Paid Advisor/Director of some major consortium trying to push through load of **** called Geo-Engineering (and I speak as an Engineer).
Yves De Boer did it, Blair did it.
Pachuri will do it... playing God and getting paid for it? Sounds like good work if you can get it...
@JohnH
Is the Telegraph a serious paper any more?
Photos of Polar Bears and Cubs on the front page to coincide with Cancun?
My Parents were lifelong socialists (they lost siblings unnecessarily and fought unnecessary wars) yet they always bought the Telegraph. It was the establishment newspaper, but they trusted it. They new how to sift through. They would never have bought the Guardian or the Independent.
Now we have a climate related polar bear "fluff" piece on the front page of the Telegraph?
It tells you a lot about the state of the media in the UK today. ******.
The sooner Rees is forgotten, the better. Will his successor, Sir Paul Nurse, a geneticist, also act as a spokesperson for climate alarmism?
From his conversation with James delingpole, I don't think so.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100051601/my-holiday-is-being-ruined-by-global-cooling-but-try-telling-that-to-the-scientists/
And the Bish covered him back in May.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/5/3/no-change-at-the-royal-society.html
"the science is firming up"
Really? Only on planet Rees...
"he is not a dendroclimatologist, but rather a dendrochronologist"
Surely anyone who can count could be a dendrochronologist, then? If there is more to the analysis, as seems likely, then the distinction becomes less clear.
It reminds me of John Cleese's discomfiture on meeting his accountant shortly after the airing of a Python sketch lampooning the profession. The accountant was unfazed, explaining to the surprised (and relieved) Cleese that the sketch had been about chartered accountants, not certified accountants like him.
"UN considers putting mirrors in space"
I think they should be encouraged. The unintended consequences should destroy their credibility for ever.
Lord Rees has descended into buffoonery. I once respected the Royal Society, but then I read the book 'Longitude'. It became clear that the RS is, and always has been, a club for wealthy dilletantes who like playing about with ideas in the company of similar people. It did have a veneer of scientific objectivity for a time, but Lord Rees has destroyed the RS's credibility, ably assisted by the rash of RS papers supporting the Marxist grab for control of the developed world at Cancun.
Has anyone here read 'Our Final Century'? I've just dusted off my copy. It really is the most astonishing, sustained piece of pessimism I have seen for a while (which is saying something).
I am not a reflexive optimist myself, but Lord Rees takes the biscuit. I'm surprised he hasn't put a gun in his mouth.