- This topic is empty.
27 October 2007 at 3:38 pm #4485
News piece on Canada.com has some pretty damning looking claims re IPCC, by one Vivian Gray. Includes:Quote:Dr. Gray’s mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.
“The whole process is a swindle,” he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.
Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray over the years — he has been an IPCC expert almost from the start, and perhaps its most prolific contributor, logging almost 1,900 comments on the IPCC’s final draft of its most recent report alone.
Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this [IPCC] reform effort, but he refused, saying: “The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only ‘reform’ I could envisage would be its abolition.”
I hadn’t heard of Vincent Gray. Did a bit of googling, and noticed that – like me – he has a PhD in chemistry from Cambridge University; so far so good, perhaps.
But then, found a short profile on DeSmogBlog – where it saysQuote:A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Gray has published peer-reviewed scientific work on coal with the last article being published 17 years ago.
Listed as a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Natural Resource Stewardship Project (NRSP), a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it’s funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. [oh dear, Dr Tim who’s prone to Ballocks – see above]
– hmm, a member of a committee that refuses to disclose funding sources… – and the IPCC is corrupt, eh?10 November 2007 at 2:00 pm #4486
Over on ICECAP – some website I hadn’t heard of that likes to decry global warming – there’s short item by John Coleman that’s attracted attention on right-wing blogs and in the Daily Telegraph.
Includes:Quote:It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. …
I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman …
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.
Ah, he’s read "dozens of papers".
And this the man who has been quoted as saying "Being a TV weatherman in San Diego is an outrageous scam," John Coleman
Now, the Daily Telegraph ran article on Coleman’s thoughts, w article calling him "Weather Channel boss" – not noticing, it seems, he was turfed out of the Weather Channel some years ago, and the channel now presents info on global warming issue. Ah well, seems Coleman’s effort has proved another straw to clutch at for global warming denialists.
One more thing that occurred to me, after seeing re Coleman: denialists seem to often be getting on in years; maybe they care little re the future, figuring they won’t see much of it, so doesn’t really matter what they say or write.15 November 2007 at 3:43 am #4487
BBC News website has strong series on global warming scepticism, by environment editor Rickard Black. One article looks at supposed bias within science against sceptics, who like to allege their views are muffled. Includes:Quote:Of all the accusations made by the vociferous community of climate sceptics, surely the most damaging is that science itself is biased against them. … I invited sceptics to put their cards on the table, and send me documentation or other firm evidence of bias. … Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who is something of an anti-hero to sceptics’ groups as he believes IPCC projections of sea-level rise are far too conservative, had heard this argument before, and he wrote in telling me it was far from convincing. "How likely is it that my funding would suffer if I found a good alternative explanation for the observed global warming, or that I would have trouble publishing it (assuming it would be methodologically sound, of course)?" he asked. "Quite the contrary, I would see it as a path to certain fame! Scientists always strive to find something radically new and different – just reconfirming what is already quite well-known is boring, and certainly will not get you the Nobel Prize. … The sum total of evidence obtained through this open invitation, then, is one first-hand claim of bias in scientific journals, not backed up by documentary evidence; and three second-hand claims, two well-known and one that the scientist in question does not consider evidence of anti-sceptic feeling. No-one said they had been refused a place on the IPCC, the central global body in climate change, or denied a job or turned down for promotion or sacked or refused access to a conference platform, or indeed anything else. If there is an anti-sceptic bias running through the institutions of science, it is evidently keeping itself well hidden. … But I will say this; if someone persistently claims to be a great football player, and yet fails to find the net when you put him in front of an open goal, you cannot do other than doubt his claim.23 November 2007 at 3:25 am #4488
A few days ago, I noticed on Google News an item with speech by Nigel Lawson – father of luscious cook Nigella, and former UK chancellor – to a New Zealand business group, in which he ridiculed global warming. Can’t find his speech text just now; but remember it had something re IPCC saying warming would cause only v small slowdown in rate of global economy rise: something which surprised me, and which I can’t find in IPCC synthesis report (which does, however, suggest wouldn’t slow economy much to take measures to mitigate against warming: I’m not sure if Lord Lawson hadn’t confused this with effect of warming).
Also, he suggested that IPCC scenarios set warming in next hundred years as no more than 4C; actually, can find 6.4C as highest figure. He had puerile way of suggesting a 3C rise (cherry picking the average forecast) by saying we can live in places from Helsinkin to Singapore: smacks of stupidity as well as smugness, with no notion of effects on ecosystems, which are already showing strains w far smaller warming; and of fact the IPCC says warming to continue for centuries: so if old farts like Lawson have their way, many generations of people will have to deal with warming impacts.
New Zealand Herald quoted Lawson as saying:Quote:The more one examines the current global warming orthodoxy, the more it resembles a Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It contains a grain of truth – and a mountain of nonsense.
“We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting.
– yes, and Lawson has clearly staked his place on the side of unreason, aiming to discount concerns of scientists who actually know about climate, ecosystems and so forth, while trying to tell business people that it’s ok to keep on as we are – after all, Lawson can expect to be dead and gone by the time the main climate change impacts are felt.
Guardian website has long blog post criticising Lawson for his stance. Includes:Quote:Lawson’s concern is that nothing interferes with globalisation, but he ignores the fact that climate change could destroy more demand-and-supply chains around the world than new government policies ever could.
More importantly, however, the callousness underpinning the argument is reprehensible. The losers in this case won’t pay with their stock options, houses and retirement income. They will pay with their lives. And the winners might yet join them.
Lawson’s line is the worst kind of self-satisfied I’m alright Jack and good luck to the rest of you argument I’ve heard in a long time. He talks of adapting and of building seawalls to stop the rising tides, safe in the knowledge that his personal wealth and the wealth of his home nation will protect him from the worst of any climate disaster.
Climate change sceptics can no longer argue with the evidence that the planet is warming. Instead they say we’ll just have to adapt
28 November 2007 at 8:34 am #4489
Wired News has item on some guff from Rush Limbaugh – who’s evidently a right wing ranter who’s famous in the US – inc comment that, “we are so insignificant. We couldn’t cause global warming; we couldn’t cause global cooling; we can’t do diddly-squat. We’re just inhabitants here.”
Rush Limbaugh Takes On Quantum Physics (and Global Warming)
I’ve added comment, including:Quote:If we humans are “just inhabitants”, wonder what Limbaugh might reckon to bacteria – heck, you can’t even see em, so what are those pinko liberal leftie scientists doing saying they transformed the early atmosphere and still have a huge impact? Sheesh!
this is not just being something theoretical to chat about: global warming an issue to affect everyone, no matter their political persuasion (one of dumbest things I’ve heard anyone tell me, was from woman saying she didn’t believe in global warming as she’s a conservative…)7 December 2007 at 10:10 am #4490
One of the best rude remarks by an MP in Britain’s Houses of Parliament was that being (verbally) attacked by him was, “Like being worried by a dead sheep.”
Al Gore might be thinking much the same, after woeful commentary in Wall Street Journal by one Holman Jenkins Jr (who he?).
The piece is supposedly some sort of critique of global warming science, yet it is totally lacking re actual science, indeed shows no understanding whatsoever of science; and you can be darn sure there’s no mention of the IPCC (which shared the Nobel with Gore) and the many scientists who contribute to its reports, or of the over 200 scientists who have signed the Bali Declaration out of concerns the situation is becoming critical, and action is needed.
Jenkins puff piece includes;Quote:Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they’ve chosen to believe.
since we’re talking science here, where’s Jenkins justification for this sweeping generality?Quote:a consensus apparently suffices as proof of itself.
what complete and utter bollocksQuote:With politicians and lobbyists, of course, you are dealing with sophisticated people versed in the ways of public opinion whose very prosperity depends on positioning themselves via such cascades. Their reactions tend to be, for that reason, on a higher intellectual level.
Is Jenkins for real? This seems more like he’s considering a career as a stand up comedian.
The Science of Gore’s Nobel13 December 2007 at 10:13 am #4491
At ThinkProgress, there’s an article re couple of Republican candidates for US election and their somewhat zany views re global warming, inc Thompson’s rather curious notions:Quote:The extremists are the ones who want to do drastic things to our economy before we have more answers as to how much good we can do and whether people in the other parts of the world are going to contribute. It’s the fact that our entitlements are bankrupting the next generation.
Led to bunch of responses, from those who believe we should act re global warming, others who say we shouldn’t. Among latters’ comments is one that includes:Quote:Just don’t for a minute think that you are going to be allowed to legislate any changes to my lifestyle in the name of curtailing global warming. No way. I love my SUV and I will be keeping it. I also prefer traditional light bulbs because they simply provide better quality light. Additionally I’ll purchase and use whatever natural resources I so chose and I won’t tolerate some pinhead environmentalist extremists telling me otherwise.
I posted response, inc:Quote:Seems to me that with the science settled (and, never mind lists of links, it is – as much as plate tectonics, or evolution; and we all know it’s obvious really: CO2 etc are known greenhouse gases, we’re adding more to atmosphere, so not rocket science to predict outcome [predicting exactly, now that’s different]), problem now with such crass selfishness, people who don’t give a rats-a about rest of the planet and the future – which far more prevalent than just CWIAS. And, problems with a bunch of scaredy-cats; just too darn scared to do the right thing.22 December 2007 at 2:58 pm #4492
Here’s a letter I recently had published in the South China Morning Post, in response to an opinion piece from the grandiose sounding International Policy Network.Quote:I am writing regarding the article “Alarmism is not the way to tackle climate change”, by Kendra Okonski, of the International Policy Network. Finding the article highly unbalanced, I checked re the network, and learned it has received over US$390,000 from ExxonMobil – surely the most infamous supporter of global warming “sceptics”.
Given this, Okonski’s claim of “biases” – towards global warming “alarmism” – resulting from funding by “powerful interest groups” is ludicrous. Her piece is riddled with cherry picked facts, half truths, or worse.
It’s immensely deceptive to claim, “The science of climate change remains hotly contested.” No, it does not; witness the standpoints of august bodies such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Britain’s Royal Society, and our own Hong Kong Observatory. Among all but a tiny minority of actual scientists, there is no longer debate over whether warming due to greenhouse gases is real – instead, any debates are now over just how severe it will be, and what measures are needed to ensure we don’t devastate the world as we know it.
Okonski asserts the International Government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “is also biased towards alarmism” – which is curious, given that some of the more alarming forecasts of scientists have been removed during the editing process. She appears oblivious to the fact that some observed changes – such as melting of Arctic ice, and expansion of the Tropics, have proceeded more swiftly than in even some of the more alarming forecasts.
While noting the number of people killed by weather disasters has fallen since good records began, Okonski fails to mention vastly improved warning systems, and Oxfam’s report that the number of number of natural disasters has increased fourfold since two decades ago.
With no scientific foundation whatsoever, Okonski claims the best thing to do about climate change is adapting, while helping people create wealth. Here, she is seemingly blinded to the obvious: if the worst of climate change predictions come true, adaptation will prove impossible for countless people, and there will be widespread economic reversals.
Overall, it seems Okonski’s piece stems from fear of doing the right thing, and adopting measures that economists have suggested could cost 1 percent of world income. With climate change real, the outcomes uncertain yet potentially devastating, it is alarming to read calls for yet more procrastination.28 December 2007 at 10:11 am #4493
If I remember rightly, one of fights by fearsome heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson was against a guy a pundit described as “Not even a household name in his own household.”
I’m reminded of this through reading of Senator James Inhofe trotting out a report for senate, with quotes and stuff from over 400 “prominent scientists”. Claims to refute science re anthropogenic global warming.
Yet, turns out many of these people aren’t prominent; and goodly number not even scientists – include tv weathermen and economists.
Maybe some non-too knowledgeable people will be hoodwinked by Inhofe, again trying to show there is debate/uncertainty where nothing so significant exists; and his report has been subject of some media reports, and of course picked up by right wing websites.
But, it’s overwhelmingly baloney.
For more on this, see, for instance:
Inhofe (R-Exxon): Truthiness Gift for Christmas4 January 2008 at 4:51 pm #4494
Here's another letter I've sent the South China Morning Post, responding to letter from Viscount Monckton.Quote:Dear Sir: It was interesting to see that Viscount Monckton of Benchley – who once wrote an article titled "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", recommending quarantine for all HIV carriers – has written to the South China Morning Post, attempting to put the editors right regarding global warming.
Sadly, Monckton fails to muster arguments that make his case. Claiming global surface temperatures have not risen in a statistically significant sense since 2001, he omits to mention that NASA ranks 2005 the warmest year in over a century, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently reported that "Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).”
Plus, in seeking a trend over just six years, Monckton has tumbled into his own trap of lacking statistical significance. The warming trend is clearly upwards, and the latest data suggests the rise is faster than previously estimated.
Monckton also refers to apparent anomalies in temperatures recorded in the tropical upper troposphere, and states that from these we now know that the relatively minor warming that ceased (sic) in 2001 was largely not caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Here, he ignores the large errors in upper troposphere temperature measurements. And – as so often with global warming "sceptics" – he ignores the mountain of scientific publications that show global warming resulting from greenhouse gas emissions is real and significant, and cherry picks from the molehill of science that suggests otherwise.
In concluding that no imposts should be inflicted upon us unless we are told how much they will cost and how much effect they will have, Monckton reveals his narrow knowledge of global warming. The IPCC has forecast that measures to mitigate the worst impacts of global warming could slow global GDP growth by an average of 0.12 percentage points. The Post was correct to write of a “planetary emergency”.
We are all effectively locked in a test tube, in surely the greatest experiment man has ever performed. If the worst projections come true, this will mean the transformation of life as we know it: a dire, apparently sci-fi scenario, yet a succession of news reports tell us of warming-related events that are unfolding at a startling pace. This is not a time for debating and waiting and seeing, but for action.
Yours faithfully, Dr Martin Williams
More on Monckton being untrustworthy, in a letter from the Clerk of Parliament no less, reproduced on Climate Shifts; includes:Quote:My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.
In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote”. You later repeated, “I am a Member of the House”.
I must repeat my predecessor’s statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords.21 January 2008 at 4:00 pm #4495
An especially crass piece on some US website, Town Hall – by a guy who has no science background, but was lately "a litigator in high profile entertainment matters" – gets it completly wrong re warming, figuring the issue’s only about politics [it’s real if your a leftie: bizarre notion to me]. Not just hysteria, but paranoia as well; and profound, worrying ignorance about the world we live in – where actions do have consequences that can’t b willed away just because you wish the world was a certain way. Includes:Quote:The Democrats (a.k.a. global warming wimps) have found the rhetorical weapon they will use for at least the next decade to decrease your liberty while increasing their power, and that weapon is the hysteria over global warming. … Environmental doomsaying is one of the most powerful tactics that liberals use to obtain and wield power. At its heart, the Democrat Party is a coalition of interest groups that feed at the trough of the government. The more power the politicians and bureaucrats have, the more contracts and benefits the groups can gobble up. … Everything you do has a carbon footprint and could be regulated by the government. If the Democrats have their way, you could face new limits on what you eat for breakfast, the way you travel to work, the computer on which you read Townhall.com, the medicines you take, the clothes you wear, the DVDs you watch, everything – everything! “Carbon footprint” is code for limitless government intrusion into every detail of your life.2 March 2008 at 3:05 pm #4496
It seems there’s some sort of contest among US right wingers to see who can stoop the lowest in writing the crassest hyperbole regarding global warming. CBS should be ashamed of hosting an opinion piece I’ve come across. Includes:Quote:creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global-warming “crisis.” They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all “scientists” and then claim that “all” the experts agree on a global-warming crisis. … Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?
– latter seems deeply ironic, given the dearth of actual scientists saying global warming isn’t an issue, and the paucity of facts supporting their case.Quote:The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times. The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.
– this shows that the buffoon penning the piece has no notion re facts; CO2 levels have been rising for some time, greenhouse effect (warming) was predicted before temperatures shown to be rising. Cold Water on "Global Warming" National Review Online: Skeptics To Gather In Gotham To Discuss The Cold, Hard Facts3 July 2008 at 1:32 pm #4527
From an article in the New Statesman:Quote:The last time I looked, four out of five of Amazon’s top sellers on climate were penned by deniers. And these are not just views from the fringe. A MORI poll reported by the Observer last month found six out of ten people think, wrongly, that "many scientific experts" disagree on whether human beings are causing climate change. Four out of ten people asked believed that the impact had been exaggerated.
Many climate-change sceptics like to think they are proudly independent people, refusing to be cowed by UN-sponsored orthodoxy from the IPCC. In fact, the arguments of climate sceptics have largely been moulded by a far more sinister force – the US-based conservative think tanks. A recent academic survey of environmentally sceptical books found that 92 per cent were linked with these think tanks, which include the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Since the early 1990s, these and other industry-funded front groups have been leading an anti-environmental backlash, changing the tenor of the political debate on environmental issues and bombarding the media and the public with disinformation.
The authors of the study, published in the June edition of a journal called Environmental Politics, argue that, far from being a true grass-roots movement, "environmental scepticism is an elite- driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement". The "self-portrayal of sceptics as marginalised ‘Davids’ battling the powerful ‘Goliath’ of environmentalists and environmental scientists is a charade", given that the "sceptics are supported by politically powerful conservative think tanks funded by wealthy foundations and corporations".31 December 2008 at 3:33 am #4572
Though science regarding climate change continues strengthening, still get cocksure scurrilous denialist twaddle, including recent article headed "2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved" in the Daily Telegraph, by columnist and resolute non-scientist Christopher Booker.
This includes assertion:Quote:Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming.
– when the evidence of the article itself suggests Booker lives in a fantasy land, barely penetrated by reality.
For rebuttal of Booker’s article, you might see Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog entry, Denialists scraping the bottom of the barrel
For more on Booker and his propensity to peddle twaddle, see:
The Bias and Logical Fallacies of Christopher Booker’s ‘Freezing Heat’ by Gavin Hudson, on an earlier Booker opinion piece; includes:Quote:the credibility of Mr. Booker’s article as a rational piece of scientific journalism falls apart as early as the first paragraph under the weight of his personal bias. Moreover, the writing is so riddled with logical fallacies that the article actually does an injustice to the “climate skeptics” whose arguments it seeks to support.
Also, George Monbiot clearly no fan of Booker; in The Patron Saint of Charlatans he writes:Quote:what can you say about a man who makes the same mistake 38 times? Who, when confronted by a mountain of evidence demonstrating that his informant is a charlatan convicted under the Trade Descriptions Act, continues to repeat his claims? Who elevates the untested claims of bloggers above peer-reviewed papers? Who sticks to his path through a blizzard of facts? What should we deduce about the Sunday Telegraph’s columnist Christopher Booker?
Nine days ago, for example, he attacked Michael Mann … How did Booker trip up so badly? By using the claims of unqualified bloggers to refute peer-reviewed studies.
for the Wikipedia Professor of Gibberish, this patron saint of charlatans, even the seasons are negotiable. Booker remains right, whatever the evidence says. It is hard to think of any journalist – Melanie Phillips included – who has spread more misinformation.12 January 2009 at 1:56 am #4575
I’d read lately of global warming deniers becoming ever more desperate as scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming continues to mount.
But who’d have thought that US right-wingers, who spearhead much of denialism, would actually cite Pravda as a source of info, as they attempt to rebut global warming science.
This would seem more like something off Saturday Night Live than reality, but just happened on Newsbonkers … err, Newsbusters:Quote:As Democrats and their president-elect — with invaluable assistance from their media minions — continue spreading climate hysteria in order to raise taxes and redistribute wealth, a possibly inconvenient truth has just been presented to the international community: "The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science."
Additionally, the entire bogus manmade global warming theory that climate alarmists and their surrogates have been forcing down the throats of the citizenry "is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change."
Such was reported by Russia’s Pravda Sunday
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.