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.
o/t but google is still at it:
a comment from a blog which u will find is factual, if u click on the link:
“Here’s a very interesting thread on the Google Help Forum. Is Google Censoring Climategate?
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Web+Search/thread?tid=25112ee0c29cbd01&hl=en
Out of 42 replies so far only 2 were in Google’s favour. And one of those was written by a Google employee and it was awarded best answer even though it only received 1 vote. The majority of other replies received between 11-25 votes.
They have the gall to put themselves first in plain sight. So when you click on the forum title you only get the ‘best’ reply and that is the biased one from Google. You then need to click on another link to get the complete list of comments.”
google has lost all credibility too.
Michael asked.
“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?”
I doubt anyone can give you that answer. The ocean’s weight constantly changes, due to salinity levels, as well as temperature.
Then there is the issue of how water is effectively ‘under the ocean’. It’s not as if the ocean floors are impervious to water. The tremendous pressure would almost certainly mean that the oceans’ mass would continue to permeate the rock stratas for some considerable depth.
For a calculation to be of any value, it would also have to take such factors into account.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Determining-the-Weight-of-an-Ocean-126979.shtml
What we do know is the rough proportion of fresh water to saline.
The amount of fresh water is thought to be about 2.5% of all the water on the planet.
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/total_global_saltwater_and_freshwater_estimates
Therefore, given that sort of percentile difference, I would anticipate that is unlikely that the oceans temperature would be affected in any significant way.
But that, as I stress, is only speculation. Considered speculation, but speculation all the same.
Aqua Fyre
Um, DR, do you have any data on the size of the wind turbine necessary to keep 3×8 to 16 or more traffic light shrouds snow free? And have you thought of the cost of the heated shrouds and the necessary wiring? Solar can not be expected to be of much help in a snow storm can it? How much federal subsidy money will it take to pretend this is a better idea than going back to incandescents in snow country, in the winter? Just another thought, I wonder if LED traffic light shrouds are more likely to be used as nest boxes by pigeons? Sorry, but my twentynine years turning engineers bright ideas into functioning electronic test equipment have left me prone to the automatic generation of ugly questions.
“New Scientist” is an appropriate title for a magazine inspired by the methods used by the new type of scientists we have learned about recently.
I used to be a voracious reader of Scientific American, Popular Science, Science digest etc. When I was in high school I probably had a ton of those old magazines in my room carefully stacked in month year order. I also saw the general drift into political activism, and away from fact and new technology based science. In the Mid 1980’s into the 1990’s I started only buying them over the counter after I had thumbed through the issues to see if they had at least one article worth reading. About 1992 I stopped even looking at them as I was only buying one or two issues a year when they accidentally covered something useful.
It is a shame an entire generation has lost ready access to those at one time fine magazines and their “cutting edge” coverage of what was new in science and technology.
Larry
REPLY: Your experience parallels mine. I was a National Geographic subscriber for years, in addition to those other magazines you list. One by one I dropped them as they became more political. Nat Geo was the last holdout for me, as it had sentimental value which started as a gift subscription from my parents. Finally reason gave way to sentiment, and it too no longer graces our home. I once aspired to write for Scientific American, specifically the Amateur Scientist column when they actually showed you how to build apparatus and conduct experiments. Now even that holds no interest for me anymore. – Anthony
“Aqua Fyre (20:38:22) : wrote
Michael asked.
“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?”
I doubt anyone can give you that answer. The ocean’s weight constantly changes, due to salinity levels, as well as temperature.”
Thanks for your considered answer Fry,
I mean Aqua Fyre
Dear Editor,
I believe this first issue rates right up there with the vast majority of other “peer-reviewed” journals about this new-fangled movement that most are now calling “climate changeology”. And to be candid, I LIKE it!
Just look at the title: “NonScientist”. Can’t be any more truthful than that. And the yellow header “Why Scientific Fraud is really OK” right next to a smiling Goracle. How absolutely appropriate; he’s smiling with complete acceptance. To the right of his beaming head is “Climate Change: Our favourite religion”, which discounts any possibility that it is based on anything tangible. The subheaders are very effective, too: “We defend corrupt scientists & attack unpaid volunteers”, which gives us an excellent expose` of their modus operandi (where do I contribute?). But really, you kept the best for last: “It’s the last place you’d expect to find logic and reason”. Amen, amen, and amen!
I believe this covers deserves the nation’s highest recognition and reward for accuracy in journalism and bravery considering the well-oiled machine supporting this mega-deception. You have absolutely NAILED the whole anthropogenic global warming scam and hung it around the neck of it’s largest spokesman. OUT-STANDING!
Now, will you have follow-up issues featuring Michael Mann and Phil Jones? They can be shown searching through the forest for that one special tree–not for Christmas, heavens no!–they need a special tree again to skew the data. I’d also love to see a center-fold devoted just to Gavin Schmidt. In a bikini, of course, since this winter is turning out to be such a hottie. Brrrrrrrrr.
And, they are electrically NOISEY!
As in EMI (Electro-Magnetic Interference) generation; they create radio interference through the use of an electronic power supply and ballast/current limit technique that creates a broad spectrum of RF energy that ‘clobbers’ weak signals … I recall first seeing the effects about 8 yrs ago working 10 Meter mobile …
.
.
Pops(19:31:10) ” We clearly live in the age of propaganda”. Beautifully stated but sad at the same time. My heart weeps for the generations that are being misled into chains.
Would an appropriate name be Nude Scientist, as in, “the emperor has no clothes”?
Does anyone have a link to a video of a lecture on cosmic rays and clouds by a physicist at CERN (possibly Jason Kirby)?
Thanks
ecph (20:41:34) :
“New Scientist” is an appropriate title for a magazine inspired by the methods used by the new type of scientists we have learned about recently.
————-
Maybe Post-Normal (or Retarded) Scientist would be better.
The New Scientist has been crap for at least 25 years and is now definitely post-modernly crap.
Back then, in the heyday of the embryonic biotechnology industry, they would have major articles on some “scientist” in the UK who had made a major breakthrough in some field or other. To anyone in the know (like me), the “scientist” in question had maybe read and comprehended a paper by the actual inventor(s), or had a beer with him/her at a conference.
I only read it because my mate had a subscription and gave me his hand-me-downs.
This is my all time favourite (sic English spelling) temperature proxy from the Retarded Scientist:
“English wine production is once again thriving and the extent of the country’s vineyards probably surpasses that in the so-called Medieval Warm Period. So if you think vineyards are an accurate indicator of temperature, this suggests it is warmer now than it was then.”
May 2007, seriously, complete with a whole team’s complement of hockey sticks:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england.html
Fred Pearce is a long term NS journalist and author. He wrote “He Knew he was Right”,a biography of James Lovelock. I have a soft spot for Lovelock, he is an independent researcher and a highly original thinker, the book tells the life story of Lovelock, but it is overwhelmingly the story of man made CO2 and its effect on climate. I was angry reading the it, trying to pull out sections on Lovelock’s life amongst large swaths of CO2 propaganda padding. If I was Lovelock, I would have been insulted.
It was when our ABC radio (Australia) science reporter Robyn Williams invited Fred Pearce on to ‘explain’ the Hadley CRU emails on his Science Show that I groaned. It was “worse than I thought”…..take a look.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2758445.htm
One more. On the bright side, my kids should be able to breeze through school now that nobody has to show how they arrived at their answer. This is the new scientific method, is it not?
Interesting tidbit of information … for the fifth straight year the Great Lakes has ice this time of year. In the 10 years before that there was ice at this time in only four of the years.
Reference: Canadian Ice Service
1. Some quotes of “1975 ´Endangered Atmosphere´Conference, Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born,” Special Report, Fall 2007, 21st CENTURY Science & Technoloogy, by Majorie Mazel Hecht, at http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf:
1.1 “Global Warming” is, and always was, a policy for genocidal reduction of the world´s population. The preposterous claim that human-produced carbon dioxide will broil the Earth, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life, came out od a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized by the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in 1974. (Hecht, p. 64)
1.2 It was at this government-sponsored conference, 32 years ago, that virtually every scare scenario in today´s climate hoax took root. Scientists were charged with coming up with the “science” to back up the scares, so that definitive action could be taken by policy-makers. (Ibid)
1.3 Eugenics and the Paradigm Shift
Mead´s population-control policy was firmly based in the post-Hitler eugenics movement, which took on the more palatable names of “conservation” and “environmentalism” in the post-World War II period. As Julian Huxley, the vice president of Britain´s Eugenics Society (1937-1944), had announced in 1946, “even though it is quite true that radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” Huxley was then director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (Ibid, p. 64-65)
1.4 In the United States, where nuclear plant construction was poised for takeoff, the dream of a nuclear-powered economy was under ferocious attack from the top down. The real “Dr. Strangelove,” RAND nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter, counseled U.S. Presidents on his strategy for winning a nuclear war, at the same time that he advocated an end to civilian nuclear energy. In one report after another, “experts” paid by the Ford Foundation, among others, argued that nuclear power was not economical, not safe, and just plain no good. Thus was scientific optimism ushered out. (Ibid, p. 65)
1.5 In the intevening 32 years [1975-2007], most of our scientific institutions have been taken over by an anti-science ideology, typified by the views of a Stephen Schneider or a John Holdren. How can there be a science when the mind and its capacity for creativity is denied, when man is put equal to beast, and when man´s advancements are percieved as ruining the pristine confines of a limited world? Such pessimism is a formula for a “no future” world. (Ibid, p. 68)
2. The leftist agenda, amongst it, the Global Warming Hoax, is the rule of a few elites, and foremost Al Gore, IPCC, Phil Jones (CRU/UEA), Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann (PSU), over the masses. The masses need not to think for themselves, the elite will do it for them. At the same time the masses are propagandized into believing that they really are thinking for themselves.
If those leftist masses would only consider and hear the people trying to escape Cuba, North Korea, Zimbave, and other “People´s Paradises.”
Another interesting observation from this graph
This date:
1972 – 1981 No year had ice on this date.
1982 – 1991 2 years had ice on this date.
1992 – 2001 4 years had ice on this date.
2002 – 2009 7 years had ice on this date.
Certainly looks to me like Great Lakes ice is increasing over the past several decades.
I’ve been waiting for this question to be asked in a news article.
“So if carbon dioxide produced by industry is not the cause of observed global warming, then what is?
Well, a Danish research group led by Henrik Svensmark has found an exact match with the level of sun spot activity on our sun. What is more, the match is spot on over the period of the last 1 500 years.
This scientific mechanism actually fits the evidence!
What happens is that cosmic rays impinge on the Earth from outer space, and these rays produce clouds much like high-flying jets leaving contrails behind their engines.
More cloud means global cooling because not as much sunlight reaches the ground to warm it. Less cloud leads to global warming. The sun creates a magnetic bubble around the Earth, which acts as a shield to incoming cosmic rays, preventing some of them from reaching the Earth.”
Scientific evidence of global warming blows hot and cold
http://www.br.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fArticleId=5277396
Well there’s also Nude scientist – with Mr Mann on the cover!
http://twawki.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/nude-scientist-2/
OT but has someone noticed that there have been two consecutive all-time record minima for Edmonton, last year, and then this year?
The remarkable thing is that THIS year’s record low for the 13th surpassed last years….by a FULL 10 degrees celsius.
Quick…..quick….batten the hatches the polar bears are drowning the Alps are melting we are all going to boil…..
Tell that to the Edmontonians…
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Edmonton+shatters+cold+record/2336460/story.html
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
PC (21:02:23) :
Here you go – Jasper Kirkby
http://seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate-revolt-of-the-physicists
Wow, I used to religiously buy the ‘New Scientist’ every week. Monthly, I would scratch my then generous thatch trying to work out the puzzle that martin g had posed!
When did the aardvarks of advocacy take control?
I don’t know but, one thing is clear, it did happen. The proof is in the ink on the page. The deceit is apparent, the political message is clear. This is not science, this is propoganda!
New Scientist- I once revered you.
Et tu- SAm
Isn’t funny how things go….
So far all the people defending climate gate as ‘nothing to see here please move on’ seem to have fallen into the time honored ‘lair’s trap’ by actually implicating the emails even more…..this is like a replay of every other cover up we’ve ever seen…..A sure sign that these people are frantically trying to MAKE THIS THING GO AWAY!!
Isn’t it funny how much faith people put into the UN and it’s hired help? The UN, the organization that gets an “A+” for incompetence in pretty much everything it touches…….It is responsible for sitting back and watching over the extermination of literally millions of people since the end of the second world war.
Earth to humans???????? Hello?????? Hello??????
Love the Dollar pyramid symbolism. This guy knows the game. 🙂
Thanks for that, philincalifornia. Have already forwarded on. Kirkby is on to something.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA