The video showing the climate research work of Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT and Steven McIntyre of Climate Audit is now up on YouTube. One of the most compelling portions of the program has to do with the erroneous reversal of the Tiljander sediments, and Dr. Michael Mann’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge his error, even though other authors of peer reviewed papers have done so. In my opinion, salvation of the hockey stick seems to trump the salvation of good science practice.
The investigative journalism here is refreshing, and well done. It’s the sort of thing CBS 60 minutes used to do.
Here is part 1, a transcript link follows:
McIntyre and Lindzen to appear on Finnish TV documentary – transcript
Update: Here’s a version with English Subtitles courtesy of commentor Apollo. ~ctm
http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2
Knowing nothing else of use, let me correct your spelling: compleeing -> compelling 🙂
Anthony,
Being in the “Biz” you should know that most (not all) reporters are chasing ambulances and celebraties – hard news (as opposed to gory) is pretty much swept aside. I’m afraid most of what we see and hear is “bread and circuses”.
Gore, Mann, and their ilk are the science celebraties – therefore quoted most often. The last scientist I can think of that was really both was the late Carl Sagan – and he was a class act in my opinion.
Most of the folks who stop by here just aren’t pretty enough and don’t utter the “sound bites” so loved by TV and its audience….
Where is Edward R. Morrow when we need him? Oh yeah, interviewing Carl Sagan…
Mike
This is probably off topic. Not being able to contribute to the science I do like to sign petitions about hiding data. I signed up for the UK No10 petition to release CRU Data.
This is the reply:
Tuesday 10 November 2009
CRUsourcecodes – epetition response
We received a petition asking:
“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to force the Climate Research Unit, or other publicly funded organisations to release the source codes used in their computer models.”
Details of Petition:
“The Met Office , the climate research unit and various individuals at numerous academic institutions are refusing to release the source codes used in their climate research models. These are tax payer funded institutions, which are influencing government policy decisions which will affect the day to day lives of us all. With the Prime Minister’s belief in a new age of transparency, it is unsurportable that these publicly funded organisations, are not open to public scrutiny.”
· Read the petition
· Petitions homepage
Read the Government’s response
The Government is strongly committed to the principles of freedom of information, and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 specifically implement our international obligations over access to environmental information. The Met Office’s commitment to openness and transparency in the conduct of their operations and to the sharing of information is set out clearly on their website (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/legal/foi.html).
Simple and transparent licences are in place to facilitate the re-use of the Met Office’s meteorological and climate data, and large quantities are freely available for academic and personal use, for example through the UK Climate Impacts Programme and the British Atmospheric Data Centre.
The Met Office’s climate models are configurations based on the Unified Model (UM), the numerical modelling system developed and used by the Met Office to produce all their weather forecasts and climate predictions.
You may be interested to know that the UM, including source code, is available for external use under licence. For general research, the licence is free; the Met Office just asks individuals to submit an abstract describing the research to be undertaken, and to provide an annual report describing the work undertaken, the results achieved and future work plans.
To improve access to their climate models, the Met Office has worked with Reading and Bristol Universities and NERC to develop a low-resolution version which can be run on a PC and is available to all UM licence holders.
Further Information on how to apply for a research licence can be found on the Met Office website.
(http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/working_together/um_collaboration.html)
“VO: The climate studies used by the UN affiliated IPCC are usually computer simulations, based on models emulating the behavior of global climate. Some traditional researchers have criticized studies based on just computer simulations, calling it “playstation climatology”.
According to the most prominent computer models, human activity should cause global warming that looks like this:”
And this was peer reviewed.
Do they have no shame?
Well Mike,
Carl Sagan was best known to the public, for describing the esoterica of the universe to people who really had little means of critiquing the validity of anything he said; not that I am suggesting he said anything that was quite wrong; just beyond many of us.
But he was also an avid promoter of SETI, on which countless millions of dollars have been spent; with absolutely not a shred of scientific evidence for any such phenomenon; as in not one single binary digit of observational data even hinting at ETI.
It’s not even clear that there is even any TI.
The whole idea behind SETI, is that somehow Intelligence (I) provides a basis for superior survivability in Mother Nature’s (Gaia) scheme of things; and therefor some entity that has survived for longer than humanity must be much more intelligent; and therefore capable of vastly more advanced technology, and communications capability than we can even imagine. Yet somehow they would want to communicate with us; pretty much in the same way that we have an irresistible urge to communicate with green pond scum algae. Intelligence is just Gaia’s latest gimmic seeking a survivable niche; and not too likely to outperform some of her real successes.
Well the Dinosaurs survived for 140 million years, just by being big and mean and ugly; we have maybe 10,000 years of some sort of technological existence; and maybe 10 times that in our roughly modern format. And the prevailing evidence suggests we may not see another 10,000 years, or perhaps, even one tenth of that; done in by our intelligence run amok.
But I certainly do feel that Dr Sagan didn’t seem to have any nefarious agendas. And if he inspired even one child to seek scientific knowledge of any kind; that made his life worthwhile.
Michael, I have a different view. As people, many journalists are ambitious and are looking to write stories that will get syndicated. Editors know the news appetite of their readers/viewers and cater to it. So journalist will tend to write what the dogs are eating: and the dogs were craving a steady diet of climate apocalypse for the past few years.
But, there’s a well known phenomenon called a hype backlash. After a particular story gets saturated coverage for a long time, people’s appetite’s change – they look for something different in their diet. They start to look for the ‘old lady beats down mugger’ stories. These are the stories that go against convention. Astute journalists sense when the hype backlash starts and fill it with contrarian stories.
I think the hype backlash for global warming has started.
It would be very nice to have this dubbed in English.
Ray (10:24:52) :
“It would be very nice to have this dubbed in English.”
True. This will probably have very limited mileage without it. Ideally broadcast quality to make it easy to export. And to make it more difficult for other broadcasters to ignore.
I wonder if the producers would see this as an opportunity. If there is any controversy … well, you know what they say about publicity.
At this point, I’d prefer to see Spencer and Lindzen.
Here’s an issue no one seems to be covering: no one can forcast the weather an hour in advance within a degree or two. How can these yuks be so brass as to state they can forcast the weather years in an advance, let alone hundreds of years in advance?
Ya get that? Isn’t that something that should be “covered” by the media? Today at 9:30am the forcast for today’s high was 68F. Well, at noon it was 70F and they’d changed the high to 71F. See? In less than three hours the forecast had to be changed 3 degrees F. That’s more than 1 degree per hour. As everyone here well knows, this is common with forecasting the weather. Climate is a strange beast that cares naught for the guesses of man.
Bottom line: if you cannot forcast the weather one hour in advance – you cannot forecast the weather 100 years in advance. Or am I wrong?
I think this is a very good documentary.
It’s hard to imagine it being presented on Dutch, German of US television, only because the lack of dynamics.
The northern countries obviously take more time to make a point.
This is good because people get the time to think.
I really hope that somehow this information is picked up by the MSM and gets through to Copenhagen but I really think we are too late.
The use of the climate scare will be replaced by another doctrine and the political objectives will be met.
There is no such thing as bad publicity.
In this case there might be. The makers of this film are already under fire for revealing that the finnish prime minister had taken bribes. It was just one more revelation in the long list of corruption scandals that are currently ravaging the country. But unlike other cases, the full might of the party PR-machinery managed to spin the case so that the show was the one that ended up taking the heat.
I wouldn’t be surprised is this episode would be used as an excuse to silence a political critic and force the network to cancel the show. The political system has a need to show what happens to those that discuss matters that the political elite would rather not talk about. It’s a shame if that happens. MOT is propably the last fortress of investigative journalism that Finland has.
As much as I liked and respected Carl Sagan (a supernova amongst cosmologists) I seem to remember that he was an avid supporter of the idea of man-made climate change.
SandyinDerby
You have just signed up to the Government denier list. Who is going to save you & me. I’m on the list now for agreeing with you. I’m also on the ASA list for complaining about government propaganda and just about every other list that represents a vestige of democracy left in this country.
We now just have to hope that the ballot boxes are opened in the same way as they have been for over a hundred years, or the ‘Mugabe’ method of lose them for an evening and count them tomorrow (As has been promoted by ‘New Labour’ to allegedly save on overtime payments) never happens.
‘New Labour’ in the UK is now a very extreme version of ‘Old Labour’ which was so marxist in it’s beliefs that it was abandoned for the ‘New Labour’ spin version or they would never see government again. How many ordinary voters realised what they were voting for?
Michael Crichton’s speech is so relevant I am posting a link to it. In it he also criticizes Carl Sagan, global warming, and the Drake Equation. This equation is filled with so many variables it is virtually useless yet today’s climatologists are using it to prove that global warming is a serious threat to humanity on this planet.
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
I just watched the whole thing in Finnish and must say that even though I don’t speak a world of the language, it’s very pleasant to listen to. That said, I think it really does need an English translation. Every Finnish person that I have ever met has a very good command of the English language. I’m not sure if that’s an educational requirement in Finland, but I’m sure you could find some sympathetic Finnish person to sort this for you for free.
All we need now is one of the well educated English speaking Finnish to educate our Prime Minister how to spell, he already knows how to spiel, but I doubt he knows the difference.
chillybean (11:14:42) :
you could well be right, I too have complained to the ASA about advert. May as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb as the saying goes.
Gary,
“Here’s an issue no one seems to be covering: no one can forcast the weather an hour in advance within a degree or two. How can these yuks be so brass as to state they can forcast the weather years in an advance, let alone hundreds of years in advance?”
Not that I believe them, but you are comparing Apples & Oranges (or climate and weather). I can fairly accurately, and easily, predict how much the temperature where I live will trend higher between March and August, even though I can’t predict within five degrees what it will be tomorrow.
This is a bit off-topic, but it’s been bothering me for a while.
I have been trying to find a definitive answer to the question of how and where sea levels are changing. Some places the sea level is rising, but at the same time sea level is falling somewhere else.
I’ve just found this website
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/
Can anyone say if this data checks out?
Sandy and Chilly. I too am on all lists but there are plenty more of us.
Minun suomeni ei ole oikein hyvä.
I just finished reading the transcript and boy I wish we had journalists over here in the US! It would make such a difference if we had a real press.
I recall Carl Sagan was a big believer in Nuclear Winter and he had similar views on AGW. Sagan was great at educating the public on science but like many, he too readily accepted AGW because it fit his political views.
Sandy and Chilly. I too am on all lists but there are plenty more of us.
Maybe they will start compulsory trench digging courses that we can all take at the local college before they march us up to the hills….
See you then.
English dub will be nice.
REPLY: Beggars can’t be choosy. If one were available, don’t you think I would have posted it? – A
Phillip, Sandy and Chilly. Yup me too just waiting for the knock on the door in the night!
Carl Sagan was very fond of saying, “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.” While he often used this in reference to UFOs and ETI, it would seem to apply to climate change alarmism. For example, if you are claiming the world temperature will increase 7 degrees in the next 100 years, you better have some pretty strong evidence rather than a few computer models.
Deborah (12:58:02) :
I just finished reading the transcript and boy I wish we had journalists over here in the US! It would make such a difference if we had a real press.
We have the internet. 🙂
The Transcript in english satisfies me completely.
As a mariner of many years, my Finnish is rather limited, to Grog and Friendlies winky wink wink.
I tend to prefer transcripts, myself. Because they remove emotion.
It was interesting to hear Lindzen discussing the Iris Effect.
SandyInDerby (10:01:15) :
Some points. releasing GCM code is only one issue. The code to calculate global temperature is also needed.
Gary (10:55:16) :
“…How can these yuks be so brass as to state they can forcast the weather years in an advance, let alone hundreds of years in advance?”
Actually, and I say this in sorrow and embarrassment to be seen actually defending climate modeling, they are not attempt to forecast weather. Climate is an average of weather over a specified period. You can think of climate as what you plan for when you pack your swim suit and sandals for Hawaii, while weather is what you get when find yourself in Hawaii wishing for a jacket and socks. They are attempting to project mean annual patterns rather than forecast day by day changes.
“… Today at 9:30am the forcast for today’s high was 68F. Well, at noon it was 70F and they’d changed the high to 71F. See? In less than three hours the forecast had to be changed 3 degrees F. That’s more than 1 degree per hour. …”
This is the difference between weather and climate.
“Bottom line: if you cannot forcast the weather one hour in advance – you cannot forecast the weather 100 years in advance. Or am I wrong?”
I would tend to agree except that if you simply stuck to projecting this year’s current temperatures based upon last years, the projection results would actually be better than the climate models used by the IPCC. What is actually difficult is projecting changes in these patterns. It is rather like investing: “past results do insure future returns.”
JWd
Kate
Theres nothing wrong with the IPCC report on sea level rise provided you read the small print and refer to the FULL version not the political summary.
You need Chapter 5. Look at the various graphs then at the caveats towards the end of the chapter. The data from Tide level gauges are literally made up as it admits in the report. They are based on three Northern Hemisphere gauges only. These were reconstrcted from the faintest of data and glued onto modern tide gauges (still a very small number) from 1900.
Satellites are inaccurate between 8 and 80mm That is up to 80 times the amount they are measuring.
University of Colorado and Proudman Observatory shows sea level rise is about1mm per year but we don’t know what that is based on. In our part of the world sea levels haven’t changed -as observed and as confirmed by fishermen and harbourmasters- for at least 150 years.
However in other places there has been a rise and in others a fall. Observation shows levels were higher in Roman and Medieval times.
Its a bigger scandal than the hockey stick..
Tonyb
Mark_K (11:48:07) :
“Not that I believe them, but you are comparing Apples & Oranges (or climate and weather). I can fairly accurately, and easily, predict how much the temperature where I live will trend higher between March and August, even though I can’t predict within five degrees what it will be tomorrow.”
Let’s say Gary’s daily temperature measurements have a standard deviation of 5 deg C. Everybody would sympathise with forecasts of daily temperatures having forecast errors of that order of magnitude.
Now somebody turns their attemtion to predicting average temperature. If we are going to assess the perforemance of these forecasts, we must turn to the standard error of the mean. The standard error of the mean is smaller than standard deviation by a factor of (say) 10, assuming we are averaging 100 independent samples of daily temperature.
If we were forecasting 100 day average temperature, the relevant yardstick for claims of performance would be 0.5 degC (assuming days are statistically independent).
Howevefr, forecasting a 100 day average to an error in the region of 0.5 deg C doesn’t mean we have achieved any improvement on our ability to forecast.
A forecast of an average might well look good it if is compared with the standard deviation of the underlying data. But that is surely comparing apples and oranges.
(Sorry this is OT)
OT but here in Australia were finally starting to get some media play on the issue of climate facts and skepticism – more on my website
REPLY: Beggars can’t be choosy. If one were available, don’t you think I would have posted it? – A
Yes I do. Maybe you misinterpreted my comment? ‘Will’, as in I hope an English version becomes available.
regards
Sam
Kate, I don’t know if the data checks out but like you I’ve been trying to find the definitive evidence of sea level rise. Turns out that is not as easy as you’d think.
Anyway, this page is a jolly fine read in that light:
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/msl-rept.htm
George E. Smith (10:16:00) :
—
What is running amok these days can hardly be described as Intelligent thought. More like Idealogical Purveyors of Computerized Claims.
If Carl Sagan were here today, he’d be the biggest skeptic on Earth, comparing what is being peddled at the IPCC to the the Destruction at the Library of Alexandria. The dog at my temperature data excuses would make his hair stand on end. We’ve seen this movie before, and we know the name of the Age that followed it. Dark.
twawki
Your link is broken.
Being from Australia, I’d like to see it.
“”” Dave (13:21:19) :
Carl Sagan was very fond of saying, “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.” While he often used this in reference to UFOs and ETI, it would seem to apply to climate change alarmism. For example, if you are claiming the world temperature will increase 7 degrees in the next 100 years, you better have some pretty strong evidence rather than a few computer models. “””
I’m sure others have used that turn of phrase too; but other than being catchy, is it valid.
There are those who say that the standards of proof are the same for all scientific postulates.
For example would a proof be extra-ordinary if a given theory/model happened to agree with the most reliable and accurate experimentally measured result to say 1/3 of the standard deviation of the best experimental result ?
Some would say that is extra-ordinary; given that in climate “science” a 3:1 fudge factor range is considered a believeble theory.
Well surprisingly there is at least one example of a totally bogus, and contrived mathematical derivation of an experimentally observable physical quantity; that meets that 1/3 sigma agreement; and that is a quantity that has a sigma of the order of 0.045 ppm; yes that is 4.5 parts in 10^8.
So just by randomly messing around with numbers someone got within 1.5 parts in 10^8 of the correct value of one of the fundamental constants of Physics (The Fine Structure Constant (alpha)).
So getting the correct answer is no defense of the result.
After watching the documentary in Finnish and reading the English transcript I have emailed the links to SBS TV Australia with a request that they consider screening it. SBS have translation and subtitle facilities and regularly screen foreign docos. Translation and subtitle facilities may not be enough however as they may also require some backbone. This is often in short supply when a TV station relies on government funding.
Good on ya Konrad.
I wonder if you play the stick? 😉
Was this program aired, or still to be aired at 8:00 pm on November 11 local time in Finland?
“salvation”
Good choice of terms Anthony — fittingly highlights the religious dimension of the antics.
May I also say how humble a man Steve McIntyre appears to be.
So refreshing in such an arrogant field.
>> Gary (10:55:16) : Here’s an issue no one seems to be covering: no one can forcast the weather an hour in advance within a degree or two. How can these yuks be so brass as to state they can forcast the weather years in an advance, let alone hundreds of years in advance? <<
Easily. They can predict hundreds of years in advance the adjustments they will make to the raw data to create the warming.
It seems there were too many elites in the 18th century as well!
“What can be added to the happiness of a man who is in health, out of debt, and has a clear conscience?
All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”
Adam Smith 1723-1790
VILE MAXIMS OF THE MASTERS OF MANKIND. A great title for a collection of pithy aphorisms. Contributions please.
TonyB (14:35:39) :
and
GeeMac (15:09:58) :
Thanks for the information. Finding accurate data about past or current sea levels is hard, and now I understand better why that is.
“tokyoboy (16:04:04) :
Was this program aired, or still to be aired at 8:00 pm on November 11 local time in Finland?”
Nope. It was shown on Monday, November 9th at 8:00 pm.
As Crichton noted in his 2003 speech, Sagan was the manufacturer of the “nuclear winter” scenario, which, like the Drake equation, is utterly meaningless. He did understand TV and PR though.
BTW Anthony, as several of your readers enjoyed the hilarity I discovered in some of the Weblog Science nominations, I pass along this response I got related to RealClimate being nominated for Best Religion Blog.
http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-gospel-of-mcgoo-unto-the-agw-mongers-giveth-the-finger/
twawki (14:56:23) wrote :
OT but here in Australia were finally starting to get some media play on the issue of climate facts and skepticism – more on my website
****
When I clikced on “twawki” I got:
The webpage “go2.wordpress.com” cannot be found
Just sent off my invitation to the “Alternative Climate Conferance” in Copenhagen on the 6 th of December. Hope I get tickets.
Smack, bang in the middle of COP15.
Looking forward to hearing:
Professor Roger A. Pielke Sr., Colorado Universitet.
Professor Ole Humlum, Oslo Universitet.
Professor Henrik Svensmark, DTU.
Dr. Steven McIntyre, ClimateAudit.
Lektor Bjarne Andresen, Københavns Universitet.
Senior scientist Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, DTU.
Lord Moncton, tidligere rådgiver for Margeret Thatcher.
Professor Fred Singer, Virginia Universitet.
From an englishman in Copenhagen.
Anthony,
If you are comparing the “journalism” of this piece to 60 minutes it is a sad commentary indeed. 60 minutes has NEVER been about anything but “gotcha” hit pieces. They have ALWAYS been fraudulent and dishonest, even more so than some of the criminals they purport to expose. I know, I have seen it up close and personal (they weren’t after me). What they do with the truth is absolutely criminal. So to compare the Finnish folks to what 60 minutes used to be is a pretty severe insult to their integrity. I would hope you would reconsider that.
Carl Sagan, in his book ‘The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” also extolled the exquisitely detailed and painstaking research by Johannes Kepler and his laws of planetary motion. These laws are still applicable today. Sagan then went on to say that Kepler, a believer in a heliocentric universe, was dead right on planetary motion, but dead wrong in his belief the sun orbited the earth. I think this applies to AGW. I’m sure some of the individual climate research by competent scientists proves singular issues that are true. However, in the broader context of proving AGW it is, as Sagan said about Kepler, dead wrong.
There is evidently a clear case for legal implications here if true
Also there is an english subtitle version (see CA)
vg (14:58:16) :
Here is the brilliant link you mention.
A video version with English subtitles:
http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2
H/T to Jean S on CA.
I appreciate that you guys find my contribution helpful. To be honest when I saw this I edited it and put subtitles in 1 night without sleeping. A lot of thanks to Anthony for a great find. This sums up pretty much a huge discussion over fabricated data..
Keep up the good work!!
ENGLISH SUBTITLES FOR THE MOT DOCUMENTARY (INCLUDES GERMAN AND NORWEGIAN SUBTITLES ALSO):
http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2
The MOT reporter Martti Backman has made numerous climate skeptical documentaries since 1997.
One of the more recent ones is named MOT: Cooling in the greenhouse which was aired in 2008. In this documentary Mr. Backman interviews climate skeptical scientists Roy Spencer and John Christy.
You can watch MOT: Cooling in the greenhouse here for free (The program is located at YLE’s “Elävä arkisto” (“Living archive” in English):
http://yle.fi/elavaarkisto/?s=s&g=4&ag=28&t=501&a=6215
Some general info about the reporter Martti Backman in Finnish and his e-mail (use Google translator for example):
http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/toimitus/martti_backman
I forgot to add these links on my previous post:
MOT: Cooling in the greenhouse with transcript in English:
http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/arkisto/mot_ilmastokatastrofi_peruutettu/transcript_english
MOT’s full interview with MIT professor Richard Lindzen:
http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/arkisto/mot_ilmastokatastrofi_peruutettu/richard_lindzen
The “home page” of MOT’s Cooling in the greenhouse:
http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/arkisto/mot_ilmastokatastrofi_peruutettu
Eh, I forgot to add some links on my previous post (again) 🙂
These following links are related to the documentary named “MOT: Cooling in the greenhouse” (“Kylmää vettä kasvihuoneeseen” in Finnish) by reporter Martti Backman.
MOT’s full interview with Roy Spencer:
http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/viikon_ohjelma/lisatietoa/roy_spencerin_haastattelu_huntsville_kesakuu_2008
MOT’s full interview with John Christy:
http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/viikon_ohjelma/lisatietoa/john_christyn_haastattelu_alabaman_yliopistolla_kesakuu_2008
You can watch MOT: Cooling in the greenhouse here:
http://yle.fi/elavaarkisto/?s=s&g=4&ag=28&t=501&a=6215
OK, I seriously have some kind of membering problems… For more links about the Finnish investigative journalism program MOT and its documentaries “Climate catastrophe cancelled” and “Cooling in the greenhouse”, check my previous posts.
The transcript in English for MOT: Cooling in the greenhouse (2008)
http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/arkisto/29_9_2008_mot_kylmaa_vetta_kasvihuoneeseen/manuscript_english