Werner Krauss on reconciliation in the climate wars
It is hard to imagine how justice will ever be done to those hurt and overrun by those who are in charge of the IPCC process.
(Quote edited to correct English slightly)
Anthony Watts has an interesting piece describing his own encounter with the team that made last night's Meet the Sceptics programme.
I was interviewed (captured really, they flagged me down in the conference hall foyer with no notice) by this production group at the Heartland conference last year in Chicago, giving well over an hour’s worth of an interview in which they asked the same question several times in different ways, hoping to get the answer they wanted. This is an old news interviewing trick to get that golden sound bite. I knew what they were doing, and kept giving the answers my way.
Doug Keenan in the comments to the last thread on the Monckton programme says he was interviewed too, but they never used the footage.
In the climate debate it can be hard to tell the two apart. Over recent days, I've been having some very interesting conversations with Matt Flaherty -- someone who is largely convinced of mainstream climate science. I've been suitably impressed by his open-mindedness. I don't think, however, that I've persuaded him of anything more than that there is a case to answer, but a space for debate has been opened.
This comment just appeared on the Met Office thread, courtesy of Thinking Scientist. It's too good not to have a post of its own:
I looked at the documents Katabasis got from the FOI of the MET office. The predictions from the Met are even poorer quality than appears at first glance because their categories for mild average and cold overlap!
Mild -0.1 to +1.3 Probability 30%
Average -0.5 to +0.6 Probability 30%
Cold -1.5 to +0.4 Probability 40%
That also means their probabilities make no sense, and gives them a double dip, or even a triple dip! If the actual anomaly was, say, 0.0 then it would be in all three categories. Brilliant! Everyone's a winner...
Can anyone think of a rational explanation?
I was thinking about all the brouhaha about James Delingpole's "interpreter of interpreters" comment, and I'm not sure I get all the fuss. I mean, James writes opinion pieces, not pop-science. I'm not sure I'm at all convinced by the idea that all columnists who write about science read the primary literature. Is that really true? Does George Monbiot?
And anyway, hasn't the AGU just set up a rapid rebuttal unit, so that all the environmental journalists know the "line to take"? What are these green journalists if not "interpreters of interpreters"?
(And please can we maintain a bit of decorum in the comments to this one. Thanks)
David Allen Green is very upset that I suggested he was trying to pressure Delingpole into doing another interview. I'll check over my sources now. It's possible I got the wrong end of the stick.
No, I've definitely got that wrong. Apologies to David Allen Green.
A lot of the action on the Delingpole-Singh spat has been taking place on Twitter. While I've had a Twitter account for a while, I can't say I've used it much, although this has changed rather in recent days. I expect my normal Twitter silence to resume soon.
That said, I'm @adissentient if anyone is interested. Tweets and a "follow" button are now in the sidebar.
Excerpt from Hansard:
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House of the statistical and scientific evidence for the Met Office's estimate that there was only a one in 20 chance of a severe winter in 2010-11, an estimate on which the airports relied?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked Sir John Beddington to give him scientific advice on the likelihood of future severe winters. On 25 October 2010, the Met Office provided the Cabinet Office with an updated three-monthly forecast, which suggested a 40 per cent chance of cold conditions, a 30 per cent chance of near average conditions and a 30 per cent chance of mild conditions over northern Europe.
Looks like Earl Attlee didn't answer the question, but good to have confirmation that the message we saw was the real thing.
Booker aims a few punches at the BBC and, in particular, Horizon (what else?). In a little addendum though, comes this:
Dr Benny Peiser and Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), have written to John Hirst, chief executive of the beleaguered Met Office, asking for an explanation of a press release issued by his organisation on January 20 and headed “2010 – a near record year”. This won headlines by claiming that last year was hotter than any other in the past decade.
When the two men examined the original data from which this claim was derived – compiled by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and the Met Office’s Hadley Centre – it clearly showed 2010 as having been cooler than 2005 (and 1998) and equal to 2003. It emerged that, for the purposes of the press release, the data had been significantly adjusted.
Comparing the actual data for each year, from 2001 to 2010, with that given in the press release shows that for four years the original figure has been adjusted downwards. Only for 2010 was the data revised upwards, by the largest adjustment of all, allowing the Met Office to claim that 2010 was the hottest year of the decade.
I asked the Met Office to comment on what seems like yet another embarrassing example of juggling with the figures. It denied the charge and I shall report on its lengthily evasive reply, once the GWPF has had a more considered response from Mr Hirst.