Bishop Hill Stewart on geologists
Mar 24, 2011 BBC Climate: MWP Climate: MetOffice Climate: Surface Iain Stewart is best known as the guy who fronted the BBC's Climate Wars programme. Remember that?
Where did you get that graph from?Today, Prof Stewart has an article on the Met Office's newsletter, in which he takes some gentle pot-shots at those geologists who are unimpressed by global warming science and in particular Ian Plimer and Bob Carter. It's grubby stuff in places...
Overall, it is clear that geology is no festering hotbed of anti-warmist revolutionary turmoil, but there are undoubtedly isolated pockets of resistance amid those that fear the economic repercussions.
But it's not all bad..
What is perhaps more problematic to the majority is precisely what role, utility or value the past record of the rocks has in helping contemporary climate change. After all, as Plimer complains: "If we cannot understand the biggest climate changes of all times, then we have to be circumspect about claiming that we can understand modern climate."
To the chagrin of many of my geological colleagues, I think this is one sceptical statement with which I tend to agree.
Reader Comments (48)
Hasn't all paleoclimatology been explained in terms of CO2 by Hansen? With some help from his GISS colleague Andy Lacis?
Is this science not settled? We should be told.
And you're right about that graph: it does look oddly familiar...
“the economic repercussions”
Does he mean the repercussions affecting everyone if we have to to what the warmists tell us, or the effect on AGW research grants if we don’t?
Remember also that he wouldn't be working for the BBC if he had a sceptical outlook.
My only recollection of him in 'Climate Wars' was driving around Britain with the ludicrous hockey stick graph on the side of his van - I kept thinking: 'surely that's been totally debunked, what's he doing'?
Only the missing hockey stick outline in the picture above prevents it being the front cover of the Bish's book!
If we cannot understand the biggest climate changes of all times, we are in no position to claim that the climate now is unusual.
I positively bombarded the BBC with questions and criticisms after the Climate Wars series (AKA Ian took his wife and children on the holiday of a lifetime funded by BBC licence payers). As you would expect the response was to bat away and suggestion that one of their programs could be anything other than perfect.
Very interesting to see just a hint of doubt creeping in though ^.^
The trouble for Iain is that like most of us he has to make a living and since his choice for this has been the BBC he hasn't much option but to toe the party line.
Most geologists tend to be sceptic and Iain is wrong to suggest otherwise. We know too much about the real climate changes of the past to be anything else. Perhaps if Iain was really in a position to express his own opinion away from the BBC gauleiters he would turn out to be a sceptic too.
No. I don't believe it. Pigs will fly first.
"Although more than 90% of geoscientists consulted supported the theory of human-induced climate change (and in the case of active climate change researchers, more than 97%)"
So, is this just the Doran paper being being trotted out again?
being being?
Sorry for the fail!
I wonder what would it take to persuade him that Mann et al. have deceived him so comprehensively with their statistical and scientific malfeasance? I'd be very angry indeed to have been used in this way.
Send him the book, Your Grace...
“more than 90% of geoscientists consulted”
Should that be “90% of geoscientists who expressed an interest in our survey”?
“I'd be very angry indeed to have been used in this way.”
It only needs one to break ranks and choose a good moment to let rip on air, preferably on a live programme. Others would surely follow and that would be worth the licence fee.
So the major extinctions have happened between 1500 and 4000 ppm of CO2 atmospheric concentrations.
Why wasn't there a major extinction when CO2 levels peaked 510 million years ago?
Why was there only a minor extinction when CO2 levels peaked 470 million years ago?
Why has there been more major/minor extinctions below levels of 3000ppm that levels above 3000ppm?
So many questions that would dispute any connection between peaks in CO2 and extinctions.
So here is the prevailing state of extinction science.
1. The Ordovician and Permian mass extinctions are associated with glaciation and not CO2.
2. The recent minor extinctions are also associated with glaciation.
3. The Milankovich cycle has been indentified as the main culprit in glaciation.
Why is Iain Stewart misrepresenting what is generally accepted as the actual science on extinctions?
Is Ian Stewart a Climate Liar?
Where's zed nowadays?
Ho hum. I'm a geologist, BSc (UEA :-)), PhD, that kind of stuff. Ex-researcher into landscape evolution too.
'festering hotbed of anti-warmist revolutionary turmoil, but there are undoubtedly isolated pockets of resistance'
Really? What I learned at UEA was to look at the data, and that makes me a sceptic. Guess I'd better go and hide in my anti-warmist hotbed pocket.
And being roundly ignored, I might add.
The revolutionary sentiment was well and truly suppressed by aerial propaganda campaign. The Climate Rapid Response Team and a few mercenaries led by Bob Ward will be sent to clear out those isolated pockets of resistance so that order and stability can be restored.
Talk about conflating the issues.
Stewart is a lightweight, a mouth piece for the beeb religion, his opinion counts for nought and is as valid as a lecture by Bliar on: probity and relating the truth in politics, would be.
I miss my little Zebedee..come home dear, all is forgiven!
XXXXX
The UK's Chief Adviser on Climate Change, Geoffrey Boulton, (a man with several resume mistakes in his favour), is a world renowned geologist http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/20/uk-govts-chief-adviser-on-climate-change.
"XXXXX"
Is that a receding cloud of dust I see over Cornwall..?
ZT
Does "a Coca Cola bottling plant in Romania" count as carbon capture? I can't see why GB would be invited otherwise...
Perhaps Prof. Stewart would like an overlay for his graph, as recently uncovered by the irrepressible Steve McIntyre.
Doesn't quite have the same impact with the "tricks" removed, does it?
JamesP:
“Should that be ‘90% of geoscientists who expressed an interest in our survey’?”
It should be: “90% of the 30% who could be bothered to take the 30 seconds necessary to tick the answers to two meaningless questions”.
Anyone quoting this survey is a liar or a fool. The fact that warmists continue to quote it is a sign of the contempt they have for reasoned argument.
James P
Geoffrey Boulton was in attendance, with his official title, so that Coca Cola could crow about their energy efficient bottling plant. No wonder Boulton was so happy to lead the Russell whitewash. There is a toe curling video available here: here. This is not particularly relevant to this thread, I just wanted to highlight an example of a leading CRU-corrupted geologist.
Oops - the Boulton video is here.
“more than 90% of geoscientists consulted”
"Should that be “90% of geoscientists who expressed an interest in our survey”?"
Or,perhaps, should it be: "90% of geologists employed in academia"?
I'm a geologist. I know lots of geologists and all of the ones I know - except some of those employed in academia - say that AGW/ACC, or whatever it'scalled these days, is a total crock of sh*t.
There are now complete transcripts of all three Climate Wars programmes here:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20080907_cw
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20080914_cw
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20080921_cw
These have links to videos of each part on Google videos, should you wish to re-live the entire Climate Wars experience. I especially recommend Part 2 ("Fightback") which has Prof Stewart climbing up on a ladder to view the Hockey Stick Graph, as displayed on a giant mobile billboard.
But Jimmy,
You employed geologists need to be successful - thus you understand the complexities.
Academic grants to do GCMs - not so much.
Steve McIntyre has been digging even deeper, and has come up with this:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/23/13321/
A must-read, because it is clear the dropping of pre-1550 data (see steveta_uk's post above, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:49 PM) was intentional.
It's also being discussed at WUWT here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/steve-mcintyre-uncovers-another-trick/
Well, Iain Stewart, what say you now?
The AAPG is the world's largest professional geological society, with around 31,000 members in 100-plus countries, even larger than the Geological Society of America with around 24,000, and the Geological Society of London with about 10,000 fellows. Many of these members, furthermore, are in common. The AAPG demands strict ethical integrity of its members, and developed its climate change position statement not from thin air, but from years of review and debate on opinions of both persuations (ie the special memoir 47 on Geological Perspectives of Global Clmate Change, ed Lee Gerhard et al 2001, 2007.) and a refreshingly unbiased evaluation of the views of the membership.
Even if only half of them are sceptics, thats quite some 'isolated pocket of resistance'. And how insulting the insinuation is that their views are influenced by 'fear the economic repercussions'.
However to be branded maverick may be an honour. The Free Dictionary defines the adjective as 'Being independent in thought and action or exhibiting such independence'. Not so sure about geo-contrarians, though. I've never seen it before- sounds a bit Mannian to me.
If the best evidence for his geological consensus Iain Stewart can come up with is the Doran poll, well, I think he deserves precisely the words expressed by his first quote
"As a scientist, you should be ashamed of yourself,"
And as a geologist, I endorse that.
Wow!
It is the very opaqueness of the planet's past that allows 'maverick' geoscientists to root their scepticism in the rocks. I use the term 'maverick' deliberately, because it is clear that the bulk of geologists appear entirely satisfied with the prevailing scientific view.
....
Only the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is equivocal on the issue, perhaps unsurprising given the findings of a 2009 survey of earth scientists. Although more than 90% of geoscientists consulted supported the theory of human-induced climate change (and in the case of active climate change researchers, more than 97%), economic geologists led the dissenting pack at 55% - interestingly, with meteorologists close behind at 64%.
All the Geologists I know and work with and not one that I know has heard of this guy nor did they respond to the survey.
Can anyone tell me how the survey was conducted? Maybe they missed us!
It's OK I know the survey in question -- just some more well cooked porridge! Like pablu it was just right for baby bear and gullible professors...
Come to think of it they were not even aware that man made CO2 guilt was the prevailing theory...
The Iain Stewart article posted on the Met Office website is both misleading, highly selective and largely in error in its presentation of data. Misleading in the presentation of graphics that supposedly represent the timings of mass extinction events in relation to atmospheric CO2 levels. The plot shows extinction events occuring at local maxima in CO2 levels e.g. late Cambrian, Ordovician and Devonian amongst others. The reality is that our knowledge of past CO2 levels during these times is incomplete at best and certainly lacks the resolution in both time and CO2 level to highlight local maxima.
The article is highly selective in suggesting that there is a correlation between earth surface temperature and CO2 levels. Any examination of the data will show that again our knowledge of Earth surface temperatures and CO2 levels are not good enough to make such statements. There is abundant geological evidence for extended periods of wide spread glaciation in many periods of the geologic past that are thought also to be periods of high CO2 levels. For example, during the late Ordovician when there is a mass extinction event. This indicates a decoupling of CO2 and temperature. The isotopic evidence has been interpreted as indicating a widespread decoupling between surface temperature and CO2 (see Veizer et al., 2000, Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon, Nature, vol. 408, 698-701). Work is ongoing using clumped isotopes to try and refine the temperature estimates.
The article is disingenuous in suggesting that there is 'little patience' for talk of cosmic rays. In my experience very few geologists have studied cosmic rays in terms of their possible effects on climate. Those that understand anything about cosmic rays have often come from a background of radiocarbon dating, or in-situ cosmogenic isotope studies, or from a geophyiscal perspective (e.g. Vincent Courtillot and others) and have a much more open mind to these new ideas. By far the majority of geologists have little knowledge of, or understanding of cosmic rays.
The errors in the article are straightforward and should not have been made and perhaps belies Stewart's point of view. He writes of Details lost in time:
"While the recent history of carbon dioxide levels comes from modern instruments, or before that from annual coral or tree growth rings or snow layers, the distant geological history of CO2 marches back in steps of 10 million years. In other words, the further back you peer in time, the more the subtle intricacies of climate are smeared out."
Here he is explicitly linking climate and CO2 levels. Perhaps it is a Freudian slip. The truth is past CO2 levels are not determined from annual coral, tree growth rings or snow layers. He subtly links CO2 and climate in these 2 sentences!
Stewart is writing from a pre-determined position and doesn't represent or understand the views of most geologists. He certainly doesn't represent my views.
Climate Wars - a warmist propaganda TV programme with a false veneer of balance so thin that you could see right through it.
The best bit of the series for me was where Prof Stewart confronted Lord Monckton at the Sceptics meeting. For the previous hour of the progs Stewart had been saying how he felt sorry for various poor sceptics because there pronouncements had been shown to be untrue (part of his false balance stitch up). He was then openly scathing when the Good Lord told him that data had been bent, peer-review gamed, cherry's picked and sceptics blocked from publication. You have to feel sorry for him really - this was broadcast a month before ClimateGate!!!!!!
Its a shame really because he seems like a nice bloke.
One of the benefits of witnessing the death of CAGW is that you get introduced to good scientists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA&feature=player_embedded
The polling article to which Prof Stewart refers with a link which takes one to the AGU paywall, may be viewed here. Even though that's a one-page summary of a more comprehensive view of the survey, Stewart has apparently got some of the figures wrong. The question which he thinks summarises the "theory of human-induced climate change" is "2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" The overall survey results was 82% yes, not the 90% he gives, which was the response to question 1. ["When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"]
I suspect the no-sayers among the geologists (foe question#2) probably consider the anthropogenic effects, which amount to no more than ~0.5 K by the IPCC's account, are not significant in the long-range view of things. Those who focus on the most recent 150 years of history, and expand its temperature range to fill up the entire y-axis of their graphs, view it as more significant.
Thank you Beaverbrook for the pointer to Vincent Courtillot. Very good.
Sam the Skeptic
Where's zed nowadays?
Last I saw of her she was over at WUWT telling everybody she came from Truro.
And being roundly ignored, I might add.
Yes, I saw that (and roundly ignored also). Funny considering not too long ago she was adamantly denying (she's a denier??) that she commented anywhere but the Grauniad and here.
From Paul Dennis:
I'm not that surprised since his experience and interests (here) seem to me to have more to do with geography and the media. But then I'm looking at this through the 'rock-tinted spectacles' of a 'hard-rock' geologist.
@Paul Dennis
That is interesting. Yes that CO2/extinction graph seems very slippery and artful, the swooping points in the CO2 levels point to extinctions like a finger showing the way, as if the extinction is a single point holding up the CO2 string into a peak.
If you look at the wiki diagram from the point of view of extinction events it doesn’t look so neat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_biodiversity_blank_01.png
If you look at comparative methods of CO2 reconstructions for that same period you have to ask which would you pick to slide over the extinction graph to connect the points?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
He uses the GEOCARB reconstuction that just about has some coincidence but seems strange that the 300 Mya low CO2 period has an extinction he missed out?
I suppose he had to make a graph that was easy to understand ;)
The man is in show business, like Singh, whatever scientific rigour they had has been washed away by the schmoozing in the green room.
ZT said
Mar 24, 2011 at 11:29 PM
“Thank you Beaverbrook for the pointer to Vincent Courtillot. Very good.”
- - - - - -
ZT/Lord Beaverbrook,
That Vincent Courtillot presentation was outstanding. Thank you. I had not seen or read him before. I put him in my Favorites from now.
John
"Yes, I saw that (and roundly ignored also). Funny considering not too long ago she was adamantly denying (she's a denier??) that she commented anywhere but the Grauniad and here."
Mar 24, 2011 at 11:41 PM Phil R
She is telling fibs then Phill. She has been a resident troll at both the D.M. and D.T.! A simple google will lead you too see this is true so why she lies about it is beyond me!
Where's zed nowadays?
BE THANKFUL!
Prof. Stewart can't even get his own subject right. In a recent series on UK geology, he completely missed the contribution of William Smith, who created the very first geological map of the UK. I recommend Simon Winchester's book on Smith - "The Map That Changed The World". (no, I'm not on commission).
@Pharos
Thanks for that reference to the AAPG position paper. Here is the link to the first chapter--excellent reading: http://www.aapg.org/committees/gcc/geoPerspectivesGCC.pdf
A very nice graph listing 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order influences on climate--the human influence made the 4th order box, a few orders of magnitude below solar luminosity, continental shift, ocean currents, orbital variations...
Rumour has it that he has this graph painted on the side of the college van he uses.
Will the university fund a new paint job when the biggest hoax since Piltdown Man, becomes evident to all?
An associate provided a link to a U-tube presentation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo) that climate science “expert” Professor Mike Palin, Otago University, linked to of a Scotsman attempting to persuade us that CO2 traps a lot of IR requires further scrutiny. The experimenter looks suspiciously like the BBC’s Ian Stewart and I am always suspicious of anything that the BBC or its minions (like Stewart) say about climate change. The same goes for Mike Palin since getting involved in exchanges with him (http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-twilight-zone/) on my favourite issue, the validity of attempts to reconstruct past atmospheric CO2 concentration from air “trapped” in ice for millenia (see my comment of Mar 28th at 10:07 PM on “Light Blogging” - http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/28/light-blogging.html#comments).
I puzzled over what that demonstration really tells us. On investigation, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermographic_camera) advises that the colour picture from an infrared camera is not true but pseudo colour, where the colours represent intensity. So when Steward shows us that candle turning more and more blue what is he really demonstrating. In my humble opinion he may simply have verified that the candle gets colder and colder as the CO2 that he is pouring into the tube replaces the O2 upon which the candle depends to keep burning brightly (highest intensity). As most of us would expect, the O2 in the tube is depleted and the candle glows less and less brightly until it goes out. Stewart’s presentation was cut short to ensure that we didn’t see it go out. I’d like to see him repeat his experiment using N2 (not a greenhouse gas) because I suspect the effect would be the same. Well, that’s my conspiracy theory anyway. As always I’m open to persuasion that I am wrong if anyone has a different explanation.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Since my last comment here I raised the question “What does Iain Stewart's "CO2 experiment" Demonstrate” on the blog of The Naked Scientists and have been looking into what might be Professor Stewart’s motivations and who he associates with regarding the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. You can find my comments on this at the “Paul Dennis on Iain Stewart” thread
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/25/paul-dennis-on-iain-stewart.html
Beat regards, Pete Ridley.