Bishop Hill Science Media Centre spins the pause
Jul 22, 2013 Climate: Models Climate: Surface Science Media Centre The Science Media Centre is best known to readers here for its press release about the Oxburgh inquiry, in which they managed to quote only scientists implicated in wrongdoing over Climategate.
Today the centre has released a statement on the failure of global temperatures to rise in line with the models. It can be seen here.
It's spin of course, although perhaps not quite as blatant as we are used to from Fiona Fox et al. As one might expect there's a lot of emphasis on natural variability and not a lot on why the observations are on the cusp of falling out of the uncertainty bands. Lots of "our understanding is getting better" and not a lot of "nobody has a clue what's going on".
There's a complete misrepresentation of science's level of understanding of the reasons why this is happening:
It is becoming increasingly clear that absorption of heat in deep oceans is part of the explanation.
I think what they mean is that this is a somewhat implausible post-hoc rationalisation of the failure of the models to conform to reality; perhaps the copyeditor missed it.
As I said in Parliament, the inability of climate scientists to admit their ignorance is one of the reasons nobody trusts them. The Science Media Centre are just helping that process along in the wrong direction.
Bishop Hill
Lucia tweets out that the SMC's remarks about climate sensitivity make no sense:
"we are becoming more confident of mid-range figures." why not 'mid-range or lower?
Bishop Hill
David Shukman's take is here.
...the scientists say, pauses in warming were always to be expected. This is new - at least to me.
It is common sense that climate change would not happen in a neat, linear away but instead in fits and starts.
But I've never heard leading researchers mention the possibility before.
Reader Comments (54)
lapogus
With you on that one.
Okay, as Shukman is BBC Science Editor, he has influence and this is an opportunity, so I will cut him some slack. But first I would like to see him to familarise himself with a little climate history, and read our host's Hockey Stick Illusion, Donna's Delinquent Teenager, and maybe Vahrenholt's Die kalte Sonne which has just been translated into English. Perhaps then we could see some balance (ho ho) on the BBC?
lapogus
Can I add to your list TAXING AIR by Prof. Bob Carter which has a very good summary of current thinking on climate science.
Well, both camps are partially right. The alarmists are right since the global warming is factual and the deniers are right since the global warming isn't anthropogenic.
Unfortunately both of them are causing an irreversible damage to the humanity.
Global warming is caused mainly by increased solar radiation due to sudden shortening of the distance between the Sun and the Earth about 10 000 years ago and only the urgent shadowing of the Earth (Prof. R. Angel University of Arizona) may be considered as the saving procedure. The alarmists and not alarmists scientist should make a shift from their weak trenches to the realistic causal treatment of the global warming phenomenon. Read more: "Can Mankind survive the consequences of Global Warming due to the shortening of the distance between the Earth and the Sun?"
Dr Elsar (Amos) Orkan
The Israeli Association for the Global Warming Fight