Thursday
Dec232010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Iain Stewart and the MWP
Dec 23, 2010 BBC Climate: MWP Remember Climate Wars - the BBC hit piece on global warming sceptics? Look at the first few seconds of this excerpt - is that the "hide the decline" graph, with the instrumental records spliced onto the proxy measurements, that Iain Stewart is pointing at?
Remember, Prof Brian Cox reckons this is the epitome of a science documentary!
Reader Comments (35)
Err, yes, it is the very same graph.
Brian Cox makes the mistake in not realising that an expert in one subject (particle physics) can be just as dumb as anyone else when it comes to passing comments outside one's own subject. To me he is the Asda version of Carl Sagan and lacks substance. When he expresses his own opinion - like that being the epitome of a science documentary - he shows the true depth of his knowledge.
Am I the only person who finds the BBC publicity push given to him somewhat nauseating. On the front page of the BBC website we are encouraged to sign on to his twitter feed. He is given stupid R4 'vehicles' like the 'infinite monkey cage' which is about 'science and celebrity' and the book of Wonders of the Solar System - mostly written by someone else and thrown together - contains more pictures of Cox than anything else - is nauseating.
As they used to say. Where is the beef?
I watched two or three epsisodes of that series and if asked would have voted it the best comedy series on tv. Apart from the odd splutter I have never chuckled and laughed throughout an hour long tv program as much as I did with these.
Iain Stewart is remarkable in his used car salesman presentation.
I'm an admirer of Brian's TV programmes and his talent for communicating scientific ideas. Besides, he works in the next building and he is our employer's most valuable asset for student recruitment at the moment. However, I don't know why he provoked a quite predictable row with a speech promoting the virtues of "the peer reviewed scientifiic consensus". There is clearly something wrong with the process in the field of Climate Change. He identified a major problem: how should the press and media treat anti-Establishment views? But, since there is no solution, he should have walked away.
How embarrassing the BBC have 'tricked' themselves.
MAKE IT STOP!
*shudder* I still have nightmares about the soft-focus photo montage of Mann (in part 2 I think). If only they made bleach for memories.
How embarrassing too for the IUGS-Commission on Geoscience for Environmental Management Working Group on 'Communicating Environmental Geoscience' of which Iain Stewart is a member.
The main aims of the working group are;
1. Learning how to communicate effectively with non-scientists
2. Tool development - developing tools to aid scientists in communication
3. Communicating the concepts of risk, probability and natural variation in earth systems.
4. Building contacts and relationships with media, politicians and decision makers
5. Coordinating existing efforts to improve communication
It is interesting to note that a contributer to this working group is a Bob Ward.
It is little wonder that the infamous 'hide the decline' graph was featured in Climate Wars. We are dealing with the usual suspects hawking the same old dodgy data.
Fairly obviously is, but my attempt to deskew it is here
Very disappointing indeed. Just goes to show how debased the title 'Professor' now is. Following the US model again, presumably (i.e. title awarded to anybody sufficently evolved to be able to prop themselves at a lectern and speak at the same time)?
Actually, this is the epitome of science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
I like Brian Cox - he has an infectious enthusiasm for his subject and my sons and I greatly enjoyed his TV series on the solar system. While I admired him for his putting down of David King on Newsnight for basically being such a wet blanket about the opening of the LHC, I was disappointed at the way he slammed "The Great Global Warming Swindle". I wish he had done some homework before he waded in.
Being Charitable to Prof Cox - perhaps, as other have said, Peer Review in Particle Physics is a rather staid, non-contentious affair. He is naive to think this of Climate Science where bastardisation has become the norm now.
Those of you who watched this series will remember how Iain Stewart frequently gave fake commiserations to Sceptics as he demolished their points (usually with false science from the hockey-team). "Oh you have to feel sorry for him don't you??" he would say.
Well for me the great irony was that this series was shown in the few weeks before ClimateGate! See if you can look out the bit where Lord Monckton tells him that Sceptics (or Skeptics) know that Peer Review has been gamed, Counter science blocked, data bent etc etc. Stewart's attitude was openly mocking. A few weeks later and the ClimateGate emails made it obvious to all (even some honest AGW followers) that the good Lord was absolutely right.
Oh you have to feel sorry for Iain Stewart don't you????
It's ironic that Stewart "debunks" solar wind/cosmic ray theories by pointing out that the sceptics "hide the decline"' of sun spot activity by stopping their graph in the 1980s. Sound familiar? Of course, he goes on to claim that the earth's temperatures are continuing to climb the 'hockey stick' despite ample evidence to the contrary.
Iain Stewart's latest effort has been to front a series on Scotland's landscape, of which I saw two episodes (one good, one not so good). Interesting that when the programme covered the demise of the Caledonian forest on Rannoch Moor; he cited climate change as the key factor. This is fair enough as it has long been accepted that the climate warmed and became much wetter about 3000 years ago. However, he made no comment or explanation as to how the local Bronze Age inhabitants had managed to bring about this significant climate change. The answer is of course simple; neolithic tools were made from flint and deer antlers (a real low carbon economy), whereas in the Bronze Age, the manufacture of bronze axe heads and other implements required industrial forges, resulting in much higher CO2 emissions...
This is embarrasing and cringe-inducing to watch. How can TV watchers survive such an assault?
I have long (as long as I can remember now) maintained that,
the only things watchable on the TV,
are
cartoons and (some) comedy shows.
Samurai Jack, Avatar- the last airbender, Dragonball Z, Spongebob Squarepants...
Reruns of Ab Fab, Black Adder, Wonderfalls, Arrested Development, Coupling, earlier Curb Your Enthusiasm...
:)
@ lapogus
So the suggestion is that these Bronze Age forges produced a significant amount of CO2 to change the climate?
Or have I missed an element of sarcasm? I may well have, it has been a long day.
I don't mean to be rude, just asking for clarification. Thank you.
Jack Maloney:
Climate scientists are agreed that most of the warming in the first half of 20th century and up to 1/3 of the warming in the second half of the 20th century was due to solar irradiance. To say, as Iain Stewart did, that only AGW can only explain this period of warming in the secong half of the century is utterly wrong. The best that luke-warmists, as opposed to alarmists, can say is that most of the warming in the second of the 20th century is 'likely' due to CO2.
I think Climate Wars is striking because it supports CAGW, it is overly alarmist and has been found twice to cherry pick and mine for data in the opening sequences.
Shub Dec 23, 2010 at 4:36 PM
Indeed
Like everybody else, if Brain Cox is Professor of Something, then he will say interesting things about Something, but whatever he says about Something Else will have to be taken even more with a pinch of salt.
The day he becomes Professor of How to Make a Documentary his opinion about what makes a good documentary will be of certain relevance.
The alternative is to go along like with Nobel Peace awardees, a huge source of embarrassingly wrong statements in the years after receiving the Prize.
@ Ross - no problem, you have had a long day - I was being sarcastic. Cheers.
@ lapogus
That confirms it, I am stupidly tired. My sincere apologies...(back in my box)
He is well intelligent enough to recognise the weaknesses of the CO2 hypothesis and the merits of a natural control, possibly the solar- cosmic- cloud paradigm he discussed, despite all the details of the physics remain uncertain. So is he putting a propaganda spin on the one and a prejudice on the other? Shameful, if one were to pose as a scientist and mislead the public in the knowledge that the scientific justification is shaky. But situation normal and to be expected for a environmental advocate.
Its a while since I was in Vietnam, but I recognise the subtitles. One of the hardest languages to learn.
This would definitely be proof of The Conspiracy except for the fact that there was no global Medieval Warming Period, the CRU was cleared or any scientific and academic impropriety by three different inquiries and the trick was simply to remove one set of tree-ring data that for some reason was no longer agreeing with actual temperatures recorded by thermometers, which was not ever central to the CRU's research effort.
Scores of other studies using different sources have confirmed the graph used on this program and all the ranting and foaming at the mouth by deniers have achieved exactly nothing by way of refuting the hockey-stick or affirming the supposed global MWP.
Climategate was a Sienfeld Scandal--about nothing.
The BBC can use this graph as much as it likes and The Conspiracy will continue to exist only in the minds of the climate denier faithful.
I'm so depressed that the BBC has declined to this level. When I was young I used to watch "The Ascent of Man" and was so proud of our broadcaster. Now we have to deal with the likes of Stewart and Cox. Even Attenborough was pushed into kissing the AGW ring.
If I could push the 10/10 button and blow up the BBC right now, I'd do it.
Iain is a regular smart arse, but too smart by half.
Consider the audio track at 1:18-1:33, "The sun is the source of all weather. Every storm, every shower, every breath of wind is ultimately driven by the sun". If this is so, and as the warmers never tire of telling us, "climate is the average of weather over a prolonged period", ergo, the sun is the driver of climate, not CO2 or some other hobgoblin.
QED.
I was unimpressed with the Huw Weldon lecture (and surprised they gave it to such a lightweight). For Cox to show the clip of the start of Cosmos said it all for me. The opening of Cosmos sees Sagan on the beach talking the most pompous nonsense you have ever heard. But at least he wrote the words himself. Cox's script is written by others as was even the idea of the documentary.
I heard that York Films are suing the BBC as they proposed a series to BBC Science 5 years ago called '7 wonders of the solar system' which BBC science turned down. A year later they had a good idea for a series and called it '7 wonders of the solar system' which was a year later changed to wonders of the solar system.
The Cox series was cringeworthy and only worked because of the special effects. So it is galling to hear him lecture the world on 'science communication' and 'science journalism.'
I'm pretty sure this has been discussed here before, and at climateaudit.
The big red line on the plot facing Iain Stewart is MBH99 spliced onto the instrumental record as if it was one continuous line, then smoothed (with some slightly arty smoothing that sharpens the minima / maxima rather more than the usual filtering). This isn't the exact graph referred to in the infamous e-mail (front page of the WMO 1999 status report), but it is basically the same "trick" to "hide the decline", presumably reproduced by some graphic designers working for the programme makers. If you compare it to the graph on the lorry they drove around trafalgar square, you'll see it matches.
I'm not sure exactly what reconstructions the other lines are from, but I believe they are selected plots from IPCC AR4 farcical spaghetti graph. Of course, these arrived on the scene later than the status report. I don't know if Briffa's problem reconstruction is in there in truncated form.
This is one of many examples of the polemic nature of Earth: Climate Wars, which in turn highlights the polemic nature of Brian Cox's lecture. What is more astonishing is that the presenters (and producers) seem blissfully unaware of it.
Shub wrote:
You know, I'm beginning to wonder if it might not be the case that words such as "unprecedented" and "unequivocal" are not unlike the word "trick", in that they may well have acquired a connotation in climate-science-speak that is completely foreign to those of us who have a reasonable command of the English language.
@ Mac
OK, I'm deeply ashamed at grabbing the low lying fruit, but you have to admit they've been highly successful at creating complete Tools.
Dunno about Iain doing peer-review but, judging by his contempt laden comments, he's got the hang of sneer-review.
What a lightweight!
Sadly, but unsurprisingly, he has a Cox behind him
It does remind you of how uncritical mainstream scientists are of
anything that the team produces. I've just finished reading
the hockey stick illusion and it really brings home the level of
incompetence and scientific deceit prevalent in the field of climatology.
That other scientists simply take these graphs at face value
shows the sorry state modern day science finds itself in. And this
is all very poignant given that b**l*cks of a lecture that rock star
Brian Cox gave recently. No wonder I don't pay the tv licence.
When I see Brian Cox I am reminded that "things can only get better."
Iain Stewart, the geologist that couldn't distinguish between gypsum and calcium carbonate on Rough Science, oh how I laughed.