My post yesterday touted a front-page article in the February 14, 2010 Sunday London Times titled "Earth May Not Be Warming, Scientists Say."I've since received compelling emails from a "Cheryl H' and from an anonymous reader that convinced me that the article's author, Jonathan Leake, has a record of being biased in his reporting on the subject and that some of his cited experts are insufficiently credible. So I have decided to remove that blog post.
I remain an agnostic on whether the opportunity costs justify the massive but likely to be unsuccessful effort to cool the globe. But I've become convinced that that London Times article does not add to the quality of the debate.
7 comments:
What to say to global warming alarmist
Climategate U turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
P Janus, with regard to how to respond to AGW alarmists, I believe a fair approach is to read this blog post of mine http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2009/09/are-we-crazy-to-try-to-stop-global.html AND the comments on it, especially those of Cheryl H--She represents one of those "alarmists," but I believe that is an unfair term, just as "deniers" is.
Marty Nemko,
'Alarmist', was in the title of the article which outlines some of the faulty science, which, as you know, could end up costing so much, not least in freedoms.
I have now read your excellent post to which you referred me and yes, you are fair.
"Climategate U turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995"
Actually, if you read what Jones said to the BBC, he said that the planet's been warming at a rate of 0.12C/decade during that period of time.
How do you justify claiming he said there's been no global warming since 1995, when he said exactly the opposite?
What he *did* say is that it's not significant to the two-sigma (95%) level, but rather just slightly under that.
Why? Mostly because the time frame is too short. The WMO defines 30 years as being the time frame for measuring changes in climate - and that standard far predates any controversy over climate change, it has been in use for decades.
Also, the interview included these two questions and answers, which gives further indication that the Daily Mail piece is dishonest.
"H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing
I - Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?
No"
Also of interest is the fact that the Daily Mail has been sued in the past for libel, and has lost several of those suits.
@dhogaza,
Yes, the Daily Mail is a rag and the BBC is a self confessed advocator for man made global warming even to the extent that they are now investigating themselves for bias reporting.
However, we have gone from settled science to a, almost, daily exposure of flaws in this science
In other news Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%
Just a tad out there then!
pjanus
The scientist who is widely misquoted as saying there has been no warming since 1995 was naive enough to speak honestly, like he would if speaking to another scientist. What he said is that since the time period is too short to be statistically meaningful, and because there is much noise in the data, there is not quite a 95% certainty that the trendline in the chart is accurate.
Turn that around and what he is saying is that there is maybe a 5% chance the trendline isn't accurate.
The Daily Mail (UK) ran a story saying IPCC Scientist says not warming since 1995.
This was picked up by conservative news outlets, talk radio hosts like Hannity and repeated in other newpaper articles and spread all over the denial blogosphere as if it were true. Now it is a new myth for you deniers to believe is further proof that the earth isn't warming.
This is not an isolated example. All of climate change denial is based on equally dishonest misrepresentations of facts, science and by manipulating and distorting what real climate scientists have said. I can show you probably 100 examples of this kind of disinformation, cooked graphs of sea ice extent, global temps, sea level rise, you name it. It is psuedoscience, plain and simple.
Please read the new book Climate Cover-Up by James Hoggan
Also the books "The Boiling Point" or "The Heat Is On" both by Ross Gelbspan.
You see the real scam, is very well documented and real, unlike the absurd conspiracy theories believed by deniers, that are based entirely on conjecture.
Oh I don't expect PJ Anus to read the truth, but I'm hoping there are still enough people out there who can still do critical thinking, and don't want to be persuaded by pure lies like this.
This is nothing new. I read about distortions of the science like this every single day. Unfortunately the rebuttals to this nonsense never reach the public, but the lies sure do.
Post a Comment