Bishop Hill Uncertainty? It's old hat
Dec 15, 2010 Climate: Statistics Climate: Surface In the wake of Climategate there were many earnest expressions of concern about the way that uncertainties had been downplayed by many climate scientists. Even some of the people most associated with the CAGW cause were heard to repeat these statements of regret.
Remember that?
Apparently, it doesn't apply any more.
There has been a bit of a kerfuffle (well, quite a lot of a kerfuffle actually) among the same kind of people over a report that a Fox News editor had told his staff to make sure that viewers were told that any claims about temperature trends were based on disputed data. His email apparently found its way into the public arena.
"[We should] refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
To me though, this looks rather commendable. The data (and indeed the adjustments applied to it) are hotly disputed, so what the viewers were being told was undoubtedly true. And Fox's actions seem admirably even-handed too, with journalists told that statements about both warming and cooling should carry this same caveat.
So why then have all the usual suspects suddenly gone into overdrive as if heresy had been committed?
To me it seems that Fox News are being crucified for failing to make clear statements of faith. And despite all the repentance expressed by the sinners of the past, it appears that no lessons have actually been learned.
Postscript: Tom Nelson notes that Revkin, who has been enjoying Fox's discomfiture, seems to have changed his position on writing about "illegally acquired" material...again.
Postscript 2: This is the Guardian's take on the affair. They seem to have some different threads to the story that are not supported by the email as published at Media Matters - I can see nothing in it to support their position that "Bill Sammon, imposed an order to make time for climate sceptics within 15 minutes of the airing of a story about a scientific report showing that 2000-2009 was on track to be the hottest decade on record."
Reader Comments (66)
Witchfinder General.......'This is the path to your salvation'.......as the flames burn so so painfully at your feet.....'deniers' are heretics in the current MSM paradigm....
Faith?Delusion?......you tell me....
and i notice coments on that grundian story are being premoderated. didnt they stop that?
I would love to see the Guradian publish its internal emails on Climate and ClimateGate.
Wouldn't that go a long ways to proving the Guardian truly believes in openness?
From my research fox appear to be absolutely right.
It is apparent that the great bulk of the warming is where people are scarce and thermometers are even more scarce (Arctic , Antarctic , western inland of Australia).
When Warwick Hughes finally found the list of stations that CRU used, I compared the ones in WA against the BOM Data.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=510
These are typical. Note the difference in the 1960-1990 base line.
http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/kaljones1999line.jpg
http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/hcjones1999.jpg
It is important that everybody check what they did to the temperatures in your own region.
When one looks at the raw data (not subject to whopping great 'adjustments' in the wrong direction) in rural locations (not affected by Urban Heat Island effects to any great extent) and in habitable areas (ignore areas where people don't/can't live) then the data shows a different picture from what the alarmists would have us believe. Trends in cities are clearly due to anthropogenic effects (not CO2, though), but most of the earth is just as it always was: driven mainly by natural variation.
See Newsbusters for the facts.
Fox News: "It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."
Guardian "Media Matters...said the directive on climate change reporting exposed the network's bias."
This says a lot more about 'Media Matters' and the grauniad: to REFRAIN from groupthink and political correctness of having to "assert [disputed] notions as facts" is regarded by them as 'bias'. Well, actually, they are correct - it's a bias towards telling the truth, and a bias against fabricating lies. Hey, we should applaud that sort of bias, just as we should applaud 'discrimination' when one chooses the true rather than the false. To "assert [disputed] notions as fact" is propaganda.
Don't forget either that Guardian eco-editor James Randerson is on record as stating "The Guardian's editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions". There's no room for uncertainty or genuine science there. This is a matter of public record of the Guardian's bias, and it looks pretty sick.
Given that the surface record shows a rising trend from 1990 to 1999, it would be dramatic news if the decade 2000 to 2009 was not the warmest decade on record. For it not to be it would have had fall in temperature by more than the previous decade increased.
Aw shucks, Mr Holland there you go again, coming over all logical, do you think it might catch on?
Green Sand
Aw shucks, Mr Holland there you go again, coming over all logical, do you think it might catch on?
Apparently, not in White Hall or the White House.
Don
Yup, in both Capitals they are big on promoting illogical capitulation. What they have not realised yet, but they will, is that the mistrust this issue is capable of engendering in government/the establishment could last for generations. The resulting implications are not good.
Far too many people in government are insulated and I mean insulated (not isolated) from real life.
...the mistrust this issue is capable of engendering in government/the establishment could last for generations.
And, if it the mistrust lasts that long, rightly so.
The population has been mightily betrayed by the government, Parliament, the civil service (of which the Met Office is a part), the mainstream media, university administrations and university academic staff, the scientific and engineering institutions - even by a senior member of the Royal Family. It is a form of pervasive corruption that has spread through the entire establishment.
Green Sand:
"Far too many people in government are insulated and I mean insulated (not isolated) from real life."
Very good comment.
David Holland succinctly summarises what Matt Briggs has said a while back about the likelyhood of the "warmest year/decade" on record being true, in the current circumstances.
I just think this issue shows how arrogant Joe Romm, the Guardian others are. It's OK for them in their papers and blogs to have stated position but it is not OK for some other paper to have another position even when they are not really taken a firm view but just making sure the facts / comments are correct. Simple hypocrisy and perhaps shows they are running out of things to write about.
Agree with Green Sand about the mistrust of Govts especially when you add in the games played with the banking / finance industry.
It is old hat. My prediction for next year: tax fossil so that it becomes uncompetitive on price giving green-bean counters the chance to show that renewables save money.
Is there an accountant in the house?
The theory that greenhouse gases will cause the earth's average temperature will rise markedly, with catestrophic consequences, requires a number of "heroic" and unverified assumptions. If you open up doubts, then the compound effect will be to conclude that the worst fears are highly unlikely, and current policies will be of virtually zero benefit, but with huge economic costs. That is why no middle ground, or debate of the issues, can be countenanced.
Yeah-but. You have to take into account that the majority of media, 'climate scientists', IPCC, Governments say that it is very well established that it's human caused warming. So this is a bit of incitement to create headlines / anxious readers.
In actual fact warming has occurred since the little ice-age. Nobody sensible disputes this. The issue is: "Is it caused by humans".
The edict may well be sensible, but the basis appears to be purely political.
@ Greensand
What they have not realised yet, but they will, is that the mistrust this issue is capable of engendering in government/the establishment could last for generations.
Very good point. There is a book called The First Day on the Somme in which the author concludes that the modern British mindset dates from that event. That is, before then people were patriotic, optimistic, and generally confident that things were being run well and getting better.
After the first day on the Somme, the tyical Briton thought we were guided by callous bloodthirsty idiots who insisted they knew what they were doing but didn't, regarded us all as stupid expendable fodder for military and social experiments, and whom we ourselves were wholly entitled to despise.
It didn't change overnight but the author contends that that's when it started.
The parallels seem clear. At some point, after Fleischmann-Pons, AIDS, CJD, H2N2, and climate change, the last vestiges of support for a Wellsian technocracy must simply collapse.
@ Jerry
the majority of media, 'climate scientists', IPCC, Governments
In reality these are of course one homogeneous group, so the warmists' claims that lots of different authorities agree with them is at best disingenuous. They're all part of the same public sector, which includes the Grunaida because it is kept afloat by public sector job ads. OK, the Gudarnia is also heavily dependent on cross-subsidy from Auto Trader, but we won't dwell on the point because it's funny enough as it stands.
Guardian just started removing critical to George comments after a day (mine never made it past pre-moderation)...The one in question had more positive recommends than George's immediate post above it as well......
http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/12/george-monbiot-complains-about-astroturfing/#comment-92
Barry: that post green sand highlighted the other day has 1551 recommends :^)
"#
PeterJackson
13 December 2010 8:36PM
Every day, I receive an email from the Campaign Against Climate Change, an organisation of which George Monbiot is honorary president. This email provides links to articles and blogposts sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, and encourages opponents to post critical comments.
The signup page for this astroturfing operation is here.
#
* Recommend? (1551) "
Interesingly enough Im engaged in a debate with a so called scientists over at Paul Hudsons BBC blog (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/12/2010-global-temperatures-a-dea.shtml) who has mentioned that uncertainty has not only been mentioned by is documented by the IPCC.
Also noted is his slavish devotion to the peer review process :)
Regards
Mailman
mailman, take him up on his offer to look for common ground, ask him to lay out how his theory works as if he was explaining it to a child.
i.e. climate system warms, clouds form blocking input energy, climate cools, clouds decrease unblocking input energy, climate system warms etc.
Ask him where Co2 fits in, and why the blocked outgoing energy won't just increase cloud cover a little to compensate, and if cloud cover does not act in the same "thermostatic" manor, why is there no evidence for past runaway warming?
I'd really like a "scientist" to answer that in terms a child could understand.
I always cringe at the fact that us 'deniers' have to rely on Fox News and the Right in the US to put our case properly. The democrats, and the news outlets that seem to favour them, seem so much more reasonable on most issues, and it is a tragedy that they have locked on to the idea of AGW so tenaciously.
More and more the debate on climate issues looks futile.
Things have moved on.
It is not just about redistribution wealth from the developed to the underdeveloped world. It is also about impoverishing the people here in the UK:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/8205123/500-on-electricity-bills-to-pay-for-green-energy.html
Yes, that's right: we'll be paying at least £500 p.a. on top of the existing utility bills - to 'save the planet'.
It isn't about the science any longer: our politicians and the civil servants in Whitehall haven't got the faintest scientific knowledge. But they know full well about getting funding from NGOs (who'll get their fundings back through mysterious channels, out of our taxes), and how to make deals with lobbyists.
Is it too late already to stop this politico-pseudoscientific madness?
A news item on the BBC about the Arctic ice said that 2007 lowest year on record. How nice it would have been if the reporter had added that the record only goes back to 1979 and therefore it without doubt that one of the years in the last 31 would have been the lowest on record.
Geronimo
You seem to be implying that mentioning the 2007 low point somehow misrepresents the Arctic ice situation. Is that what you're saying? Since records began, Arctic ice has an overall downward trend, and the rate of loss is increasing.
Mentioning the recent low point would seem to be entirely in keeping with that. I don't understand your point.
A bit O/T, but I thought many may be interested in this.
Friends of the Earth Scotland have recently released "The Power of Scotland Secured", a report being promoted by the Green Party which outlines how renewables will allow Scotland to meet all its electricity needs (and more), whilst also ensuring such supplies are secure. Nuclear is not in the mix.
I'm still working my way through it, but the essence of the 'secure supply' is based upon:
1. A small fossil fuel back-up - just in case
2. 'Deferrable Demand', which I read as mandated brown-outs
3. More hydro-storage and the abilty to draw power from lots of of plugged-in electric vehicles.
4. Drawing power from Europe via a new energy distribution network.
I'm still working my way through it..
http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/sites/files/possv6final.pdf
I'm still not sure about uncertainty, but there may be some signs of thawing-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11986236
Much of that noise of course generated by our usual suspects like the BBC, Grauniad, WWF etc etc. But it seems to provide scientific support for Fox adopting a less biased stance, at least wrt to CAGW. Wonder if they'll report on progress to get permission to cull the sacred polar bears given their population has been booming of late.
Re PaulH from Scotland
Huh? Can't quite see that last bit working or being at all efficient. But that kind of sums up electric cars. They may not be entirely environmentally suited to Scotland given turning the heater on significantly reduces range.
I sense a regressive future though. I remember being a kid, seeing snow outside and waiting for the news that there'd be no school today. Now, we'll be able to have no wind/no work days!
"Wonder if they'll report on progress to get permission to cull the sacred polar bears given their population has been booming of late."
Dec 16, 2010 at 1:02 PM | Atomic Hairdryer
I notice you don't give a source. Could you explain what you're basing this on please?
According to polar bears international, of known subpopulations, 7 are declining, 3 are stable, 1 is increasing and 7 are unknown. This contrasts with 2005, when 5 were decreasing, 5 stable, 2 increasing and 7 unknown.
DavidB,
Not sure why you think there is anything wrong with having to cite Fox News? There is a very good reason why they are America's most trusted news outlet (with daylight being second) and thats simply because they allow all sides of a debate to be aired.
To be honest, I cringe at the unabashed hostility shown by the BBC when ever they interview anyone who isnt a lefty. Personally I far prefer how the US media goes about interviewing people, how they allow them to get their message across without repeated, hostile interuptions. If only the BBC would adopt a similar interviewing technieque.
Mailman
Zeds
The numbers don't add up - from your source.
ZDB:"Mentioning the recent low point would seem to be entirely in keeping with that. I don't understand your point."
My point is that the record goes back only 31 years and that telling us the sea ice in 2007 was the lowest on record, while true, has left out a pertinent fact, i.e. we don't know anything about the record before 1979. Over such a short period of time there was bound to be a "lowest on record" even if the Arctic ice was at twice the level it is today. So it's not giving the listeners the whole story it is giving them the story that conforms with the BBC's editorial line of following the AGW scare agenda to the letter.
The Arctic ice has fluctuated over the centuries to the extent that people could navigate the north west passage, so the BBC should have enquired from these attention seeking scientists how the Polar Bears survived those periods, but are apparently going to die out the next time the ice goes.
Re ZDB
Not the PBSG where you seem to have lifted your 'facts' from. If you go to that source, like this page-
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/population-map.html
You'll see lots of 'unknowns'. But uncertainty has never been a problem for groups like the PBSG who famously evicted one of it's experts (Mitchell Taylor) due to breaking consensus by simultaneously denying populations were decreasing and daring to sign the Manhattan Declaration. But also made room for a new guy from the WWF. They know all about poley bears and cuddly marketing of land sharks.
Otherwise look at the Canadians, who have lots of polar bears and want to cull some.
We also seem to have managed to cross over on some Arctic news. You said-
Yet there's that new paper in Nature that the BBC article refers to that suggests rumours of an Arctic death spiral have been greatly exagerated, which someone may want to tell Mark Serreze about. He doesn't seem to have that memo.
ZedsDeadBed
Like you I was once a firm 'believer' and now I'm a 'denier' (both terms being quite misleading I hope you agree) and I know cannot see how I felt the way I used to.
I was kindly pointed in a very useful direction and advised to read and understand the 'Allegory of the Cave'.
Instead of simply refusing to see can I ask you to both read the above (it's Socrates so hardly low-brow) and would you even be prepared to at least consider that the AGW stance might (might only) now have a case to answer?. Can you see how it can't ALL be completely 'settled' and 'true'.
There ARE questions to be asked now on the entire subject, can you not see this?.
I have been watching your contributions for some time now with this being the first time I've addressed you personally. I am trying to get you to build in just a small escape route for your intellectual dignity (no, I am not calling you stupid/ignorant or whatever) because if....just if this all turns out to have been a false prophesy where do you turn then?.
Like me I suspect you have no qualifications in climate science whatsoever but I AM a science graduate with many years of postgraduate study and I use this education every working day and I tell you Sir that what I see does not conform to 'sound' practice?. Politics naturally comes into almost every facet of modern life but the degree of infiltration with the 'global warming et-al' scare is just simply wrong with a high degree of suspicion that the IPCC is a 'tainted' body.
You are doing an admirable job in defending your position Zed but I have a feeling you are in a dead end.
You seem willing to engage in these pages so please, tell me what you think.
As an aside, with respect to polar bears I have no knowledge of the reference above but they are indeed positively thriving....
'and I know cannot see how I felt the way I used to.'
Apologies, meant 'now' of course...posted before previewing.
if....just if this all turns out to have been a false prophesy where do you turn then?.
I would have thought that was obvious? You simply retire the old username and invent a new one.
Yup...
I do like this account by someone previously committed to carbon accounting and building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry who explains why he subsequently became more sceptical to the extent that he has put his money where his mouth is:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/climate-skeptics-guest-post-why-david.html
"Not the PBSG where you seem to have lifted your 'facts' from. If you go to that source, like this page-
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/population-map.html"
Dec 16, 2010 at 1:53 PM | Atomic Hairdryer
No. As I clearly stated, I got my information from polar bear international. Why, when I clearly state my source, do you just assume I got if from somewhere entire different and then start looking at that? Are you so focused on standard men in tights arguments that everything is focused on attacking certain groups, and you don't have the arguments to hand to deal with other ones?
You also still haven't named a source for your claim that polar bear numbers are increasing, other than the uselessly generic 'Canadians want to cull them'.
Do you not actually have a source? Are you just passing off men in tights folklore as fact?
Here Zed, try this. Thank you for answering my question by the way.
http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2571
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fcomment%2Fcolumnists%2Fchristopherbooker%2F5664069%2FPolar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html&rct=j&q=polar%20bear%20expert&ei=hywKTaC7OsLSrQejyJTVDg&usg=AFQjCNHvHOQGHv_p5qB4gy4FKvLd0P3X_A&cad=rja
We are all being conned mate...unless you know already and your motivations are not as advertised.
Either way faith is powerful stuff.
Good luck.
Re ZDB
My bad. I assumed you'd used a more reliable source than a polar bear marketing group set up by a wildlife photographer and his wife. If you look at their Form 990's though, you'll see PBI is more endangered than the polar bears. PBI though seems to have lifted their numbers straight from the PBSG though which should be the (slightly) more reliable source.
As for the rest, go back to PBSG. Estimates from '50s had populations at 5-10,000. Current estimates are 20-25,000 due to restrictions on hunting. Or go look at Canada's widlife service showing populations increasing in 11 out of 13 areas. Or the US wildlife service reporting increased sightings around Alaska's North Slope. Hudson Bay populations had been declining due to shifts in weather patterns meaning less ice in the Bay, but that looks to be refreezing niceley. Which may be good news for geese populations as polar bears had been eating their eggs, threatening that population. Now there's the Nature article saying Arctic melting isn't worse than we thought so polar bear populations are less threatened. Like they ever were anyway.
But if they're not endangered any more, what will the WWF adopt as a mascot next? Pensioners facing increased energy poverty and poverty in general I suspect will not be it, especially given the WWF is helping endanger that species..
ps.. Not sure where your 'men in tights' fascination comes from (ballet?) but I'm fairly confident that there may be a consensus amongst polar bear experts that they're a sensible thing to wear on winter field trips. Along with carrying powerful firearms. Polar bears are stealthier predators than even the most experienced green NGO lobbiest.
"As for the rest, go back to PBSG. Estimates from '50s had populations at 5-10,000. Current estimates are 20-25,000 due to restrictions on hunting. Or go look at Canada's widlife service showing populations increasing in 11 out of 13 areas. Or the US wildlife service reporting increased sightings around Alaska's North Slope. Hudson Bay populations had been declining due to shifts in weather patterns meaning less ice in the Bay, but that looks to be refreezing niceley. Which may be good news for geese populations as polar bears had been eating their eggs, threatening that population. Now there's the Nature article saying Arctic melting isn't worse than we thought so polar bear populations are less threatened. Like they ever were anyway."
Dec 16, 2010 at 3:43 PM | Atomic Hairdryer
Right. Let's examine these systematically.
PBSG. Estimates from '50s had populations at 5-10,000. Current estimates are 20-25,000 due to restrictions on hunting.
Classic misdirection. PBSG states that (a) 50's estimates are notoriously unreliable and (b) the estimated low numbers were due to hunting. When hunting restrictions were put in place, numbers rose to the amount you quoted. However, those numbers are now falling again. You either knew this and tried to be deceptive, or haven't actually looked at their site.
Or go look at Canada's widlife service showing populations increasing in 11 out of 13 areas.
Let's check out their website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/nature/default.asp?lang=En&n=E8C6F5DD-1#IA Oops - looks like they're working closely with several organisations including the IUCN to conserve the polar bear as they're a species at risk. Where on Earth did you get your 11 out of 13 figure from?
Or the US wildlife service reporting increased sightings around Alaska's North Slope.
Are you kidding me? This is in no way evidence that polar bear numbers overall are 'booming'.
Which may be good news for geese populations as polar bears had been eating their eggs, threatening that population.
What? You're just getting weird now. And btw, would that not be a characteristic of a species having to find new food due to threatened habitat?
So. You're aware that there are many groups who consider the polar bear to be in real danger. Nonetheless, you're happy posting a comment that their numbers are booming. Your evidence for this is:
- The PBSG - except they say the opposite of what you're claiming
- The Canadian Wildlife Service, except they say the opposite of what you're claiming.
- reported sightings in part of Alaska - pretty inconclusive.
- something about geese.
Again - I put it to you, that you're making claims stated as fact, which there is no real evidence for. Simply because they fit in with the whole men in tights ethos.
Huhne mentioned uncertainty today when commenting on green energy. Estimates by regulator Ofgem of a potential 60% rise in bills by 2015 were based on ''a forecast, and it's an uncertain world'', Mr Huhne said. (Telegraph)
Denier.
Arctic's vanishing sea ice presents polar bear with a new danger – grizzlies
The Article is complete b*******... but just read the comments... The Independent and hardly a comment in agreement.
Do they just assume that commenters do not equate to readers?
Are papers so divorced from what is written on their sites? The article is atrocious and the comments make this very clear...
It is difficult for anyone to state exactly how many polar bears there are. These vicious sea killers are able to roam both land and ice, and swim in open water.
I therefore suggest that all polar bears should be shot on sight, so that an accurate idea may be established as to how many did exist. We can then stop worrying about them, and seal populations, and then killer whales will increase.
Meanwhile, back to the thread......
I think Hitler would be proud of this fascist stance by the Guardian