Bishop Hill Rose in the Mail
Mar 17, 2013 Climate: Models Climate: Surface Climate: sensitivity David Rose, writing in the Mail on Sunday, has penned a long feature on the temperature slowdown and what this implies about UK energy policy. I don't know about you, but the Mail on Sunday's willingness to publish science-heavy articles of this kind really should be celebrated.
There are plenty of scientific big-hitters in there too: the article features quotes by Judy Curry, Myles Allen, James Annan and Piers Forster, so one would think that it would be hard for anyone to dispute that Rose is presenting a legitimate view of the science. However, the reaction from sci-blogger (and occasional Guardian writer) Martin Robbins seems to suggest not:
Wow - the Mail on Sunday have gone into full on bat-shit-crazy conspiracy theory mode… pic.twitter.com/YW2dPyNpTK
Whoever David Rose is, his interpretation of that graph is illiterate. Either it's a deliberate lie, or he's barely capable of functioning.
I've asked Robbins to expand on why he thinks the interpretation is illiterate and what conspiracy theory Rose is putting forward.
No reply as yet. Hmm.
Reader Comments (70)
It's always better to refute a discussion point early with bluster than have to back up your position with facts later on:)
You wont get an explanation because as we know...climate scientists dont have to explain anything. How else can you "explain" their, ahem, lack of science in their science?
Regards
Mailman
Standard Climate Jihadi response - Ad Hominem. Ignore the science and call your opponent a crazy.
Strange the top three best rated comments are pro warmist, knowing the usual skeptical mindset of Mail readers on that subject, I find that odd.
I smell a rat.
But that graph seems to show temperatures with no upward trend to ~1984, then a rise to 1998, and then no upward trend since then.
Am I illiterate?
It appears there's some sort of organised rating war in the comments section for the article (C777). So I, for one, have down-rated the three top-most greeny posts.
Shouldn't that read:
"Whoever Martin Robbins is, his interpretation of David Rose's article is illiterate. Either he's a deliberate liar, or he's barely capable of functioning."
But who the hell is Martin Robbins, that's what I want to know? Is he jealous of David Rose's status?
Why are we promoting a complete non-entity from the Guardian's twitter feed?
Justin Ert
It's whack-a-mole. If you don't call them on this kind of thing, it will spread to people like Monbiot.
I am with c777 - I cannot believe that the top comment is now nudging 5000 "recommended". The fact that it is a warmist comment is highly dubious.
I would suggest an investigation is required.
And well done to the Daily Mail for (at last) putting forward evidence that has been out there for ages but ignored by the MSM.
This comment-rigging alone is worth the DM investigating - would be interesting to learn why one boiler plate diatribe has excited 50x the attention of the others. Do 5000 use(ful/less) idiots even READ the DM?
The 5000 positive likes for a 'green positive' comment in the space of a few hours on the article will probably become a major story in their own right.
Very wired that they are even bothering to do this.
I see Martin Robbins is using the Mannian tactics of wind, bluster and insult to obscure things.
He describes himself "as a Berkshire-based researcher and science writer". I just wonder what real qualifications he has.
There was another Martin Robbins a US country singer, although dead now we might get more sense asking for his comment!
Morning All,
I had prepared this for the Green Week Debate last week but the “slowdown” in large scale temperatures did not come up in the conversation. I think many people on both sides of the issue are not seeing the complexity of the problem and want to see what they want to see.
Embedded within the longer term trends from the LIA there is considerable decadal variability which varies over time, space and season. Much of this decadal variability (excluding volcanic forced cooling) is likely internally driven and is difficult to model and is not fully understood.
Last year, I wrote a short BH post on large scale temperature trends. The figures from that can be seen here:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/ftp/figures.pdf
As an addition to last year’s post, from these data, I calculated the temperature trend/decade for each of the series for three periods: 1900-1940, 1970-2010 and 1990-2010.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/ftp/trends.pdf
The rate of trend changes considerably with season, latitudinal band and between land and sea temperatures.
I have highlighted the periods which show greatest change. Predominantly all in the last 20 years, but there are notable exceptions. See southern hemisphere SSTs for example.
The challenge for the climate dynamicists and modellers is to try and understand the forcing of this variability. Looking at a single global temperature series is really not very helpful for anything.
Rob
"I've asked Robbins to expand on why he thinks the interpretation is illiterate and what conspiracy theory Rose is putting forward."
I admire your courage and tenacity, Bishop.
The value of the article is to compare actuals with predicitions. It says nothing about the future other than that all the model predicitions have been, well, have erred on the side of warming. Rob, it is not we the sceptics who do not accept uncertainty. Much of our effort has been to decry the certainty of others or at least the danger of accepting certainty of this nature when forming policy. Our policy on climate has bet all on the certainty of warming. If that is not so certain, we need a policy reaction to that. And we need to stop listening to advocates who bring their own data and conclusions.
When one gets to work, sits down at their computer to publish the Mail and discovers how really hard to type with the parka, coat, sweater, vest, thermal underclothing, gloves and mittens ti will tend to focus even the most ardent journalist.
The value of the article is to compare actuals with predicitions. It says nothing about the future other than that all the model predicitions have been, well, have erred on the side of warming. Rob, it is not we the sceptics who do not accept uncertainty. Much of our effort has been to decry the certainty of others or at least the danger of accepting certainty of this nature when forming policy. Our policy on climate has bet all on the certainty of warming. If that is not so certain, we need a policy reaction to that. And we need to stop listening to advocates who bring their own data and conclusions.
Mar 17, 2013 at 10:40 AM | rhoda
Absolutely Spot On!
Well said!
The 'best rated' comment (4000+) seems to have gone!
Judging by the article's heading, it's the first of a series.
Being a regular reader of this type of article in the Mail, in the past, ALL the favoured comments have been against the AGW myth, almost without exception. Today, the opposite appears to be true, with thousands of green "approvals" for comments, whcih ordinarily, would be laughed out of court. There's definitely a stitch-up of some decription in operation. How misleading - is it the Mail itself which is responsible, or has someoen found a way to fiddle the figures?
The whole comment system in this article is so OBVIOUSLY adjusted, I'm surprised they still have the nerve to continue to allow commnets at all, until this abouse has been investigated and stopped.
Excellent article. Only trouble is, it’s in the Mail, and the Guardian-reading media people, academics and other think tank fauna who decide government policy are convinced that everything in the Mail is a lie.
I wonder if it’s something to do with the stuff in the right-hand column on the Mail’s website? - “bootylicious Christine shares risquè shots of her superfit body”, and so on. Politically correct Guardian readers don’t look at things like that in case it makes them go blind. (Their fashion page once ran a feature on the latest bikinis with no photos).
Guardian readers will take one look at all those bumps curves and wiggles on that IPCC chart and turn away in disgust.
The Guardian has a hard on of hate over the far more widely selling Mail , so Robbins reaction is hardly a surprise especially given that anything but total and blind support for 'the cause ' will by some be jumped on has 'conspiracy'
Bishop Hill
'it will spread to people like Monbiot.' now there is train that long ago left the station , indeed so long along it already spreads out from Monbiot.
He is another one of these scientism hero nerds who want to think they are great original thinkers, but really only ever follow the required conventional path with the aim of climbing the ladder of science luvviedom.
I think his entry in the The 100 Worst people on twitter. captures the hubris nicely. :)
The Bish is right, you need to call people like this out, and see their justifications, because otherwise they'll just end up basking in their lazy kneejerk Mail bashing unctuous glow. ;)
The more I look at that article, the more I'm convinced that there IS some sort of conspiracy to divert the public disbelief in AGW - the comment section of this article is clear evidenceof this - I hope someone is taking a screen-dump or two, just in case. There have NEVER been that many recommends for comments such as those displayed in this aricle, for similar articles.
'Looking at a single global temperature series is really not very helpful for anything.' (Rob Wilson, 10:25AM)
I think I appreciate the points you are making from your viewpoint as an insider immersed in the complexities of your subject.
But think of it from the perspective of those of us on the outside who have been on the receiving end of Schneiderian Scenarios (‘scary’, ‘simplified’, ‘dramatic’).
Some of us find that ‘looking at a single global temperature series’ is very helpful for making sense of the remarkable impact of such as the hockey-stick plot in the hands of the IPCC designers of press conferences and summary reports, and of what may well be the most-widely held mental-image of CAGW that has been promoted by various people claiming to be severely alarmed by it.
Al Gore for example, whose key work 'An Inconvenient Truth' was distributed to schools by the previous government of the UK, and which included that gentleman climbing a step-ladder to show where our ‘global temperature series’ was surely heading. That the series has been a bit on the flat side in recent decades certainly makes it ‘not very helpful’ for such as him. But it does help the rest of us in helping form our view as to the credibility of his key message.
Rob Wilson
"The rate of trend changes considerably with season, latitudinal band and between land and sea temperatures."
Don't know about "with season, latitudinal band" but with land and sea temperatures, they sure seem to have something in common. They all undergo the same change in direction at very similar times. Whose tune are they dancing to?
HadCRUT4
http://i48.tinypic.com/b6rr15.png
CRUTEM4- North and South Hemispheres:-
http://i47.tinypic.com/29xhk05.png
HadSST3 - North and South Hemispheres:-
http://i48.tinypic.com/9jkosl.png
AMO?
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle_files/image005.jpg
'Looking at a single global temperature series is really not very helpful for anything.' (Rob Wilson, 10:25AM)
I'm pretty sure David chose that temp series because it comes from the Met Office. Had he chosen others series he'd have had to explain to his readers who GISS is, or University of Alabama Huntsville, which to a Mail reader would not be automatically an authority on which UK policy should be based. BUT, any series would have made the point if subbed into that graph.
I had the pleasure of meeting David Rose at the Oxford Union thing. He knows his stuff, he is not some dilettante journo churning out re-phrased press releases. Probably hasn't even got a scruffy trenchcoat. But what he HAS got is an editor who is willing to print his articles. In the most important paper in the UK.
The troll ofTruro is notably missing from the comments as are Nigel from,Newport,and George of Durham
The Bish is right to call Martin Robbins on these disgraceful, yet brainless comments. And Old Goat is right to say that there is 'some sort of conspiracy' in the climate area. I don't think we will achieve what we need to if we always shy away from that reality, just because someone will call us nutters. They will anyway. Our host himself named one careful study 'Conspiracy in Green'. Quite so.
Thus three days ago I called one part of the climate crowd that pushed Marcott et al into existence bungling conspirators. But I didn't say who exactly they are, because I don't know that. I was expressing the common belief in these parts that the timing of this new, fatuously bad hockey stick paper was not an accident. And if it wasn't an accident, with something this erroneous, without the source code, with all the alarmist media outlets Stateside (and some that should know better) jumping on it immediately as final proof of catastrophe, all just before the deadline for AR5 ... some kind of planning went into all this. But I still like the adjective I attached. The kind of conspiracy I love best.
As for David Rose and David Bellamy in the Mail on Sunday, bravo. What a great way to go, after the devastating graphic - quoting all the warmists themselves, then Judy, then David Whitehouse:
It should be the final nail in the coffin but it won't be. And that's because of the C-stuff already mentioned. And the D-stuff of course - the widespread delusion. But that is dying away fast, thanks to men like Andrew Montford, David Rose and the editors of the finest Sunday paper in the land. (And who cares what the Guardianistas think of that? They need to read and learn. Humbling innit.)
2 million readers. And it's certainly stirred up a response, as well as strange going on's in the comment section, with tick up scores never before seen, and all in a short time. Presumably from the many Sunday Mail readers that are alarmed about rising CO2 levels.
Interesting times
Rhoda
You’re right of course. But most of my right-on lefty colleagues would rather die than admit it. What happens to a country where the entire governing class refuses to admit it’s wrong (about Europe, as well as climate change)?This is called 'confirmation bias unrealized'. It results in an intensification of illusions. Hence, 'bat-shit crazy'.
Mar 17, 2013 at 10:22 AM | ConfusedPhoton
Marty Robbins. A great writer of cowboy songs. The best, truth be known - tho' Me & My Uncle, by John Phillips is the greatest cowboy song of all time. IMHO
Big Iron - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PQZPTmS-ZY
Me & My Uncle - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUd5-7tTW4w
This was a Public Service announcement
Part 2 is here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294602/The-Great-Green-Con-2-How-councils-duped-bad-science-hire-eco-snoopers--slash-OAPs-benefits.html
If the "likes" by Enviro-Fascists were graphed, it would look like......
A Hockey Stick!
The number of people Skepticalscience has to smear is increasing, unless they've already pre-smeared. No such problem for Deltoid.
There can be little doubt that the "climate communicators" have been mobilised to the Mail comments.
As for the absence of the usual suspects, I am sure they are there under several different names, sockpuppeting away like crazy. These comment sections should make IP address and user agent of contributors visible, and block proxies.
Top rating post now only 1,700+ what happened to the 5,000+ one?
I smell several (green) rats!
David Rose also has a very favourabe review of "The Age Of Global Warming" by Rupert Darwall in the Mail's Review section.
At last someone from the MSM to join Christopher Booker. Well done David Rose and the editor of the Mail on Sunday.
Now expose Yeo, Gummer etc. and all those who disseminate disinformation about windmills, solar panels and biomass.
I smell a rat.
Mar 17, 2013 at 9:39 AM c777
I smell Climate Reality Droppings.
I never take any notice of comment ratings. They are not robust proxies.
Would a graph of the controversial comment ratings possibly look like hockey stick?
Great Green Con 2 makes some attempt at exposing the politicians, but no mention of Bryony 'Brownout' Worthington.
Peter Foster also has a favorable review of "The Age of Global Warming".
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/03/13/peter-foster-deranged-science-peverse-policy/
The Metro also regularly has good science articles in its centre pages.I would like to reccomend it as a decent newspaper honestly doing what it does well. I would also reccomend it as an example of a newspaper business model which is clearly working despite it being free, and thus a counter argument to all those papers who claim theu are being killed by us bloggers. They are being killed by being liars who treat their customers with contempt.
For example, Ben Goldacre in the Guardian is, depending on the subject, credible but what other "reporting", "science" or otherwise in it shows any respect for science.
I think many people on both sides of the issue are not seeing the complexity of the problem and want to see what they want to see.
...
The challenge for the climate dynamicists and modellers is to try and understand the forcing of this variability. Looking at a single global temperature series is really not very helpful for anything.
Mar 17, 2013 at 10:25 AM Rob Wilson
Thank you for commenting.
Wasn’t the sceptic argument always that it’s too complicated to make snap judgements? Personally I’d be very happy if climate scientists asked for breathing space to sort it out. Unfortunately models and the global temperature graphs have been used as the clarion call for instant and ill judged action. You can’t complain now the audience has begun to cry ‘oh no it’s NOT!”
I’ve no idea what the state of the science is. The public image is dominated by a small group of mouthy individuals who are now beyond the pale. Every time I hear a new story I have to ask ‘is this something they’ve measured or is it just a guess?’ If you want to make a difference to the public perception of AGW get round to having those debates we apparently all missed.
Re the DM comment ratings.
They work on nett rankings, for example, a comment with 5000 approvals when hit with a disapproval will reduce the count to 4999.
The top-rated posts are still heavily alarmist but there's more of them now!
A clear case of vote switching by the Swarmists methinks.
Spot on Tiny!
David Rose's article is on their front page:-
https://realitydrop.org/
So those 5000 recommends were just mindless excretions from Big Al's legions of little "climate patrolmen".
Prolific, tiny, content free but fairly harmless - like rat droppings.
"Looking at a single global temperature series is really not very helpful for anything."
Oh.