Jo Nova has launched a new publication, inspired today by their latest article. Read on.
You might think journalists at a popular science magazine would be able to investigate and reason.
In DenierGate, watch New Scientist closely, as they do the unthinkable and try to defend gross scientific malpractice by saying it’s OK because other people did other things a little bit wrong, that were not related, and a long time ago. Move along ladies and gentlemen, there’s nothing to see…
The big problem for this formerly good publication is that they have decided already what the answer is to any question on climate-change (and the answer could be warm or cold but it’s always ALARMING). That leaves them clutching for sand-bags to prop up their position as the king-tide sweeps away any journalistic credibility they might have had.
I’ve added my own helpful notes into the New Scientist article, just so you get the full picture.
Read the whole story at Jo Nova’s website, and tell her I sent you.
UPDATE: More bullying from scientists
In WUWT comments, Keith Minto points out the New Scientist is listed in the Climategate emails
See: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=796&filename=1179416790.txt
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: More Rubbish
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:46:30 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
yep, I’m watching the changing of the guard live on TV here!
New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that. They
are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point,
including the HS!
I have been reading this publication on and off since Nigel Calder was the editor. It was quite an curious, edgy publication then, willing to push boundaries (it was the first to publish Sir Alister Hardy’s Aquatic Ape Hypothesis) even though it then arrived 3mts late by seamail from Britain.
Nigel Calder co-authored “The Chilling Stars” with Heinrick Svensmark and made it into a very readable cosmic ray/cloud formation story that has captivated so may of us.
Unfortunately, along the way it lost the ability to question and forgot what the ‘Scientist’ part of its title really meant.
It appears that Mann was discussing this New Scientist article from May 16th, 2007
The 7 biggest myths about climate change
Interestingly, after that fawning article on “a guide for the perplexed” see in the CRU email archive on March 8th there is an email that names one of the authors of the May16th New Scientist article, Fred Pearce, where complaints are lodged about the upcoming March 10th issue and plans are suggested to counter it.
Here are web links for the two people mentioned: Eystein Jansen and Richard Somerville it appears there were BCC’s to CRU, otherwise we’d not have this email in that collection.
Here’s the email: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=784&filename=1173359793.txt
From: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Richard Somerville <rsomerville@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Responding to an attack on IPCC and ourselves
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:16:33 +0100
Cc: wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi,
just a quick reply. I am in on this, and will respond to a draft letter, in the hope that
you will make the first, Richard? I agree that it can be short. It is strange to see this,
knowing that the delegations I spoke to in/after Paris clearly said that the CLAs got it
their way, and that I believe this is the strong common perception we also had as CLAs
about the outcome.
Best wishes,
Eystein
Den 8. mar. 2007 kl. 03.11 skrev Richard Somerville:
Dear Fellow CLAs,
The British magazine *New Scientist* is apparently about to publish several items critical
of the IPCC AR4 WGI SPM and the process by which it was written. There is an editorial, a
column by Pearce, and a longer piece by Wasdell which is on the internet and referenced by
Pearce.
I think that this attack on us deserves a response from the CLAs. Our competence and
integrity has been called into question. Susan Solomon is mentioned by name in
unflattering terms. We ought not to get caught up in responding in detail to the many
scientific errors in the Wasdell piece, in my opinion, but I would like to see us refute
the main allegations against us and against the IPCC.
We need to make the case that this is shoddy and prejudiced journalism. Wasdell is not a
climate scientist, was not involved in writing AR4, was not in Paris, and is grossly
ignorant of both the science and the IPCC process. His account of what went on is
factually incorrect in many important respects.
New Scientist inexplicably violates basic journalistic standards by publicizing and
editorially agreeing with a vicious attack by an uncredentialed source without checking
facts or hearing from the people attacked. The editorial and Pearce column, which I regard
as packed with distortions and innuendo and error, are pasted below, and the Wasdell piece
is attached.
My suggestion is that a strongly worded letter to New Scientist, signed by as many CLAs as
possible, would be an appropriate response. I think we ought to say that the science was
absolutely not compromised or watered down by the review process or by political presure of
any kind or by the Paris plenary. I think it would be a mistake to attempt a detailed
point-by-point discussion, which would provoke further criticism; that process would never
converge.
Please send us all your opinions and suggestions for what we should do, using the email
list [1]wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
I am traveling and checking email occasionally, so if enough of us agree that we should
respond, I hope one or more of you (not me) will volunteer to coordinate the effort and
submit the result to New Scientist.
Best regards to all,
Richard
Richard C. J. Somerville
Distinguished Professor
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive, Dept. 0224
La Jolla, CA 92093-0224, USA
—
Here’s the editorial that will appear in New Scientist on March 10.
Editorial: Carbon omissions
IT IS a case of the dog that didn’t bark. The dog in this instance was the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
For several years, climate scientists have grown increasingly anxious about “positive
feedbacks” that could accelerate climate change, such as methane bubbling up as
permafrost melts. That concern found focus at an international conference organised by
the British government two years ago, and many people expected it to emerge strongly in
the latest IPCC report, whose summary for policy-makers was published in Paris last
month.
It didn’t happen. The IPCC summary was notably guarded. We put that down to scientific
caution and the desire to convey as much certainty as possible (New Scientist, 9
February, p 3), but this week we hear that an earlier version of the summary contained a
number of explicit references to positive feedbacks and the dangers of accelerating
climate change. A critique of the report now argues that the references were removed in
a systematic fashion (see “Climate report ‘was watered down'”).
This is worrying. The version containing the warnings was the last for which scientists
alone were responsible. After that it went out to review by governments. The IPCC is a
governmental body as well as a scientific one. Both sides have to sign off on the
report.
The scientists involved adamantly deny that there was undue pressure, or that the
scientific integrity of their report was compromised. We do know there were political
agendas, and that the scientists had to fight them. As one of the report’s 33 authors
put it: “A lot of us devoted a lot of time to ensuring that the changes requested by
national delegates did not affect the scientific content.” Yet small changes in language
which individually may not amount to much can, cumulatively, change the tone and message
of a report. Deliberately or not, this is what seems to have happened.
Senior IPCC scientists are not willing to discuss the changes, beyond denying that there
was political interference. They regard the drafting process as private. This is an
understandable reservation, but the case raises serious doubts about the IPCC process. A
little more transparency would go a long way to removing those qualms.
—
Here’s the Pearce column:
Climate report ‘was watered down’
* 10 March 2007
* From New Scientist Print Edition. [2]Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
* Fred Pearce
BRITISH researchers who have seen drafts of last month’s report by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change claim it was significantly watered down when governments became
involved in writing it.
David Wasdell, an independent analyst of climate change who acted as an accredited
reviewer of the report, says the preliminary version produced by scientists in April
2006 contained many references to the potential for climate to change faster than
expected because of “positive feedbacks” in the climate system. Most of these references
were absent from the final version.
His assertion is based on a line-by-line analysis of the scientists’ report and the
final version, which was agreed last month at a week-long meeting of representatives of
more than 100 governments. Wasdell told New Scientist: “I was astounded at the
alterations that were imposed by government agents during the final stage of review. The
evidence of collusional suppression of well-established and world-leading scientific
material is overwhelming.”
He has prepared a critique, “Political Corruption of the IPCC Report?”, which claims:
“Political and economic interests have influenced the presented scientific material.” He
plans to publish the document online this week at [3]www.meridian.org.uk/whats.htm.
Wasdell is not a climatologist, but his analysis was supported this week by two leading
UK climate scientists and policy analysts. Ocean physicist Peter Wadhams of the
University of Cambridge, who made the discovery that Arctic ice has thinned by 40 per
cent over the past 25 years and also acted as a referee on the IPCC report, told New
Scientist: “The public needs to know that the policy-makers’ summary, presented as the
united words of the IPCC, has actually been watered down in subtle but vital ways by
governmental agents before the public was allowed to see it.”
“The public needs to know that the summary has been watered down in subtle but vital
ways by governmental agents”
Crispin Tickell, a long-standing UK government adviser on climate and a former
ambassador to the UN, says: “I think David Wasdell’s analysis is very useful, and unique
of its kind. Others have made comparable points but not in such analytic detail.”
Wasdell’s central charge is that “reference to possible acceleration of climate change
[was] consistently removed” from the final report. This happened both in its treatment
of potential positive feedbacks from global warming in the future and in its discussion
of recent observations of collapsing ice sheets and an accelerating rise in sea levels.
For instance, the scientists’ draft report warned that natural systems such as
rainforests, soils and the oceans would in future be less able to absorb greenhouse gas
emissions. It said: “This positive feedback could lead to as much as 1.2
================
Here’s the editorial Carbon Omissions and another March 10th article at The New Scientist discussing the WG1 being “watered down”. Looks like they got their way, since the May 17th article was highly pro AGW or as Dr. Mann said:
They are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point, including the HS!
Your tax dollars at work.
UPDATE2:
Interestingly, due to Climategate, WUWT is now within striking distance in terms of reach and traffic of the New Scientist, and Scientific American. Prior to Nov 19th, WUWT was around the world rank 40K mark on a regular basis, now we’ve moved up. In the USA WUWT is now ranked 4823 according to this analysis.
Click for details at Alexa.
WUWT readers can help close the gap by referencing WUWT articles in letters to the editor, other blog posts, and blog comments where relevant. Thanks for your consideration. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
New Scientist has been infested with politically correct hangwringing for many years, reflecting the general mood of guilt and pessimism that afflicts the UK. I speak as a former UK citizen.
Mr Gary said (19:07:20) :
“I used to read New Scientist occasionally 20 years ago, but even then I found a lot of hyperventilating although some of the articles were thought-provoking.”
Many a middle-aged politician now says the same about certain publications that never pretended to be scientific although they disclosed vital statistics … “I only subscribed for the articles on sports cars.”
Who do we trust for science news?
That’s easy, show me the data and how you mesured it and I will show you the truth.
It’s funny reading the news articles on COP15 and Climategate these days. They only discuss the level of Tyranny we are supposed to be willing to accept.
The New Scientist is to News Week as Science is to Weak. I subscribed for a while, but the cover story hype was never lived up to the story in the mag. Needless to say they have become a AGW drum beater for the past while with the usual claims but no evidence. As far as I am concerned they can go to the great pulp recycler in the sky. Scientific American is starting to be a disappointment too. I’ll keep my subscription, but its really not worth much any more.
I let my “Scientific” American sub lapse after they did their hatchet job on Bjorn Lomborg.
I’m currently saving up for a subscription to “Skeptical American”. 🙂
AlexB (18:35:16)
“CO2 is a greenhouse gas which has increased in concentration over the industrial period. We know that this increased concentration of CO2 is causing the warming becasue we haven’t been able to attribute it to anything else e.g. increase in solar energy.”
It is 31F at the moment in central London. I am wearing a black cashmere coat and gloves to stay warm. Therefore, black coats and gloves cause freezing atmospheric temperatures, but maintain body insulation.
I have a scientific question, if someone out there could answer it, I would appreciate it.
If all the ice on the planet were to melt into the ocean today, How much colder would the average ocean temperature be than it is today?
New Scientist often has a problem with anyone who does not subscribe to the party line.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/davesmith_au08/090919_newsci.htm
Big Bang deniers have the same problem, amongst others.
I almost dropped my subscription to Scientific American after their format change when they dropped the Amateur Scientist and some other regular columns, but gave it a chance. It didn’t take too long to watch them veer into the political correct waters and push the global warming angle when I finally pulled the plug. The same happened to New Scientist and I dropped that subscription as well. I’d agree that they are doing this to build readership, much as reality TV pushes crazies and partially clad nubile bodies to grow viewership. About the only thing NS is now good for is to go to their website and laugh at the comments thrown about after their “stories.”
“Unfortunately, along the way it lost the ability to question and forgot what the ‘Scientist’ part of its title really meant.”
Priceless!
Tom in Texas
That solution is simple: install solar/wind (free energy) powered heaters to defrost the lights.
It’s snowing in Copenhagen.
Scientific American Published a “laundry list” of nuclear weapons which the US had and the Soviets had, back in the ’80’s.
The then Editor went on National Putrid Radio to promote the “nuclear freeze” based on the FICTIOUS list they published.
As I recall the “bad, evil, mean” USA had 30,000 warheads. While the “gentle, kindly, warm, Soviet Union, had only a paultry 10,000 warheads.
The problem was, being the old “Civil Air Patrol” Brat that I was I immediately identified a bunch of “weapons systems” in the Sci Am article which had been decomissioned for years. Namely:
1. Nike/Zeus ground to air, nuclear tipped missles. (I’m not even sure they were ever actually fielded. It would involve putting NUCLEAR WARHEADS on missiles ABOVE GROUND and extremely vunerable to “commando attack” for theft purposes.
2. “Genie Missles”, air to air, 1 kiloton warheads, taken out of the arsenal in the ’60’s (same problem as above, one falls to Earth, unexploded, and you’ve just given someone the fissile material for a bomb.)
3. Decommissioned Atlas/Centar missles.
4. Decommissioned Bomark missles.
At the same time, there was absolutely NO mention of the surface ship SSN Missles which the Soviets had on many of their surface navy ships. Amounting to hundreds to perhaps as many as a couple thousand warheads. Medium range, granted. (300 to 900 miles) but capable of wreaking havok along the coasts of the USA.
I petitioned the local NPR affiliate to get “Fairness doctrine” equal time. I was given that time, at a time spot equivalent to the spot by the editor of Sci America.
It was just the “local” station, but I recieved calls and congratulations from 4 states surrounding the state I was in.
Sci America? Let’s call it what it is: UnScientific and UnAmerican.
The deletion of comments at New Scientist is the ultimate in irony.
Charles Platt (19:31:51) : wrote
quote New Scientist has been infested with politically correct hangwringing for many years, reflecting the general mood of guilt and pessimism that afflicts the UK. I speak as a former UK citizen. unquote
I blame the science fiction writers and, more particularly, the editors. While the USA and the ROW were reading upbeat stories about technological solutions, we were forced to wallow in sleazy and unpleasant tales of deviant diddlings, ethically dubious and science-free tales which fitted the frequently barking world view of the editor, and PC navel-gazing goings-on in ever grubbier and narrower settings.
NS is making the same mistake that UK SF made: it is confusing the wishes and views of its editors and writers with what its readers want.
Hmmm… Platt, Charles Platt… Where have I heard that name before?
JF
(Only teasing, Charles, you never turned one of mine down.)
The fraudsters are sure a tight knit group. You wonder why they never spent any time on real science, instead of just cooking the books. The striking thing to me is how journalism joined the hoaxers.
I say again, I sure hope enough real scientists stand up to save science, seekers of truth, as we knew it. Before it all goes down the drain of political science. It’s circling the drain right now. Worth remembering, public trust is not a renewable resource.
P Wilson (19:55:47) :
AlexB (18:35:16)
“CO2 is a greenhouse gas which has increased in concentration over the industrial period. We know that this increased concentration of CO2 is causing the warming becasue we haven’t been able to attribute it to anything else e.g. increase in solar energy.”
“It is 31F at the moment in central London. I am wearing a black cashmere coat and gloves to stay warm. Therefore, black coats and gloves cause freezing atmospheric temperatures, but maintain body insulation.”
Yes, but I have heard this argument before, some, some not including the Sherlock Holmes Law, “whatever is left has to be it”. It’s true, there is no direct evidence of any gg affecting global temperatures. One in particular I remember offhand is Hansen’s “circumstantial evidence”.
“Although greenhouse gases haven’t been caught “red-handed”, circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that carbon dioxide and its co-conspirators methane and nitrous oxide are creating a predicament for Earth’s climate.”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/
“I’m currently saving up for a subscription to “Skeptical American”. :-)”
The damndest thing is, there are couple of “skeptic” type mags out there. They are full on AGW cheerleaders, though.
American Scientist is still OK. Actually does science articles. SciAmNot and Non Scientist are rags. And not just because of the AGW crap. All sorts of preachy left wing politics that isnt remotely related to science.
The weather outside is frightful,
[warmth?}…………….is delightful,
Let it snow, Let it snow, Let it snow.
(old song)
Thanks to Jo Nova for her fearless and tireless devotion to the truth!!
——–
Here’s a little more satire to digest from a Canadian friend of mine. Takes one minute to watch….and his point is valid. LOL
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Rob M. (20:08:05) :
It’s snowing in Copenhagen.”
Can you get video of it and upload it on Youtube?
I subscribed to SA for 40 years and got some good information from it. Some time in the 80’s they changed most of their editorial staff to women and there was a shift towards pseudo-science ( in my opinion ) but I kept on with it. In the 90’s they went back to a more main stream science reportage but carried more op-ed pieces and some edutainment , but I kept with it.
Now with their rather excited, groupy, support of the non existent science for CO2 warming I have finally given up and when my subscription lapses in February I will not renew .
The NS , which I used to borrow from my English friend each week , was always a political rag pushing a left / liberal agenda but it was current and carried some very interesting and well written science articles. I stopped reading NS when my friend returned to the UK.
When I read , on line here, the apologia for CO2 and the CRU gangsters I went through a few back issues on line. I am very glad I have never bought a NS and I certainly wouldn’t hold anything they publish in much esteem.
It’s all a bit of a bugger really. I am a civil engineer involved mainly in irrigation infrastructure , earth dams and water distribution and keeping up with trends in science was both work and a consuming interest. What to read now? How do I know what’s true? There was never any climate change here in Zimbabwe but I was told by the big science papers that I was just not sensitive enough to detect it and yet the concern was supposedly about humans !
Let’s hope those boys at CERN don’t [snip] us all I don’t think I could take it and that would force me into politics. Mind you that’s what science seems to have become anyway.
“Neo Scientist” would be a more appropriate name for it.
Now don’t be too hard on AlexB. See:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html
The offending party is determined pretty much the same way it’s been done since the Stone Age: “You have made the volcano angry! Prepare the virgins!” “But how do you know something we did made the volcano angry?” “What else could it be? The stars are congenially configured; no bolt of lightning split the sacred tree; the consensus among my fellow priests is that it’s your wicked ways, your fudging on your tithes.”