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.
“My suggestion is that a strongly worded letter to New Scientist, signed by as many CLAs as possible, would be an appropriate response.
“Prepare the Testy Letter!”
“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 neverconverge.
“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”
I am astounded that alleged scientists are obsessed with image-making and PR bullying to make themselves look good. Is this what they’ve been spending all that research money on? How can their respective institutions/employers justify this appalling teenage behavior? These egomaniacal fanatics, wallowing in self-generated publicity and semi-stardom, are pathetic. And the rest of the scientific world accepts this? Ugh.
Note how Mr. Somerville signs his letter to PEOPLE HE KNOWS. The vanity and self-importance are truly mind-boggling.
We all have that big orange ball in the sky to thank for screwing it up for them.
I stopped reading the New Scientist, Scientific American & National Geographic some time ago. I also stopped watching Daily Planet this year and I’m seriously thinking of cancelling my subscription to BBC World as well.
AGA (Anthropogenic Global Alarming) anyone? Rather Home Counties centric but it’s pretty early in the morning.
I haven’t seen History Channel mentioned here (and on now). The show is on the Sahara, concerning the cycles of desert to vegetative every 20,000 years due to the earth’s wobble starting 3 million yrs ago.
The last vegetative state retreated about 5,500 yrs ago and in 100-200 yrs it became desert. Therefore, the N. Africans can look forward to the return of the Sahara re-vegetation in about another 14,750 years from now.
What with the record lower temps and early ice, you’d think that the AGWs would be coming up with some sort of explanation; but nooooo – they are claiming that 2009 was one of the warmest on record. I’ve heard that on the Weather Channel and read it in a few comments sections. It’s like they’re hive-minded.
Good show on your nearly catching up to New Scientist and Scientific American! I was a faithful reader/subscriber of SciAm for over 20 years and dropped my subscription several years ago precisely because of how they seemed to forget the first part of their name. 25 years ago there were numerous discussions about whether the “soft” sciences truly deserved to be called sciences and cautious inquiry about the science behind AGW. 5 years ago all the intellectually bankrupt but politically correct theories and practices were welcome and they moved from cautious inquiry into wholehearted advocacy on AGW. WUWT may not have the wide diversity of material SciAm had in the good old days but at least I can trust you haven’t forgotten the Scientific Method or such things as integrity.
I’ve cut way down on my viewings of the Discovery Channel, History Channel and similar fare due to the soft-headed current programming as well.
philincalifornia,
http://seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate-revolt-of-the-physicists
Thanks for that fascinating link. There is no doubt that Dr. Jasper Kirkby completely destroyed AGW in his presentation. What is amazing is that Kirkby repeatedly emphasized that his talk did not provide any answers but rather posed new questions. Why do you think that is? I think Kirkby was covering his ass because he did not want to be ostracized or marginalized by the well-funded AGW crowd.
It’s amazing because even physicists (who could teach a thing or two to climate scientists, including the proper application of mathematical rigor to data analysis) are terrified of the warmists. How did the warmists amassed so much power?
I have only occasionally looked at the New Scientist website. However, I used to subscribe to Scientific American. Scientific American is a lousy magazine. Quite apart from their PC editorial line, the writing is awful. Or I should say the editing. The articles are written by actual workers in the field, but are uniformized by the editorial staff – put into some kind of standard SciAm prose, an in so doing, they render them wholly unreadable. Also – another pet peave of mine – despite the fact that it’s readership consists mostly of scientists, engineers, high school teachers, and educated laymen (all of whom understand algebra, and most of them calculus) they refuse to ever print even the simplest equation, even when it would explain more than a whole page full of words and graphs. They treat their readers like idiots.
However I like the title “New Scientist” – the idea behind it. Because, when this AGW sham has been exposed, we’re going to need a whole bunch of new scientists.
NEWS FLASH COPENHAGEN! History Channel has discovered that AGW isn’t causing African aridity, but rather the earth’s 20,000 yr wobble! OK, all you Copenhagen African attendees, you can go home now and wait 15,000 yrs for the interplanetary cycles to provide you the next 20,000 year vegetative state. Wow! We’re saved.
That’s a long time. There are the aquifers, but those million year old supplies (drilling has started) will only last about 100 years. Long term? How about nuclear plants powering desalination centers.
Stop blaming developed countries through AGW! The developing countries claims AGW reparations is a fraud. Why did Western Non-Scientists encourage this AGW guilt & reparation fraud? Go crazy explaining that.
Any more info in this? I didn’t know this and was wondering about interplanetary cycles.
ey will only
About time someone highlighted the shocking editotrial line at New Scientist.
Boycott it! I personally will never purchase another copy of NS.
“You could do some searching on George Soros.”
The real machines behind this are outfits such as Fenton Communications and Futerra. They are the PR coordinators that keep all these various “grass roots” organizations “on topic”, write their press releases, coach their people for interviews, make sure they don’t issue conflicting statements, etc.
Can someone please explain what the abbreviation CLA refers to (as in “Dear Fellow CLAs”)?
Anon (21:26:52) :
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:
Interesting link, thanks. Makes me look at Margaret Mead in a new light.
New Scientist is widely read by people like me who have a passing interest in Science. People like myself are too busy to give more than a few hours a week to following trends in science, so this magazine is an important instrument in bridging the gap between the scientific community and the public who want to know about what is happening in the world of science.. There are many like me who who rely on this journal and trust the editors not to be politically motivated.
Because I follow WUWT and EUreferendum I have become puzzled and sceptical about the NS. This attempt by NS to debunk climategate really opens my eyes about the how low quality the editorial team at the magazine really are. For me their reaction to Climategate is an own goal.
BUT most people in my situation would never read WUWT; we are not really up to following the detailed debate and rely on NS to provide balanced reportage. I think when NS lose sight of their responsibility they become a serious hazard to the reputation of science in the wider community.
I think it is really important for the scientific community to debunk this magazine and call for higher standards of reporting if it is colluding in propaganda.
“philincalifornia (21:40:09) :
PC (21:02:23) :
Here you go – Jasper Kirkby
http://seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate-revolt-of-the-physicists”
Did you all hear Dr. Jasper Kirby at around 44:00 into this video explaining CHEMTRAILS to you in this video that we see all the time happening when we look up at the sky from time to time? Did you take notes?
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (23:34:55) :
Can someone please explain what the abbreviation CLA refers to (as in “Dear Fellow CLAs”)?
The Country Land & Business Association fits the bill nicely.
http://www.cla.org.uk/Policy_Work/Climate_Change/
pat (20:34:16) 15/12:
“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?”
Pat, I presume you are talking about the autosuggest feature in Google?
And I assume that your hypothesis is that I should not be able to find references to “ClimateGate” by using the autosuggest feature?
I mounted an experiment, since there is nothing like empirical evidence to make one feel better.
The result: The word “climategate” appeared as the second entry in the list after I typed in the first four letters, i.e. “clim”.
On selecting that suggestion, I received the first page of 20,700,000 references.
So from my simple experimentation, I have to conclude that your hypothesis is false.
Ah, the scientific method. If only it was used in climate science …
I once bought the Non Scientist every week. It gave insights into all types of ideas and questions – sometimes quite cranky. At one time, the letters section was two or three pages long, and full of debate.
The Non Scientist was one of the things that brought me to my own MMGW scepticism. Over time, it had more and more articles peddling the alarmist message, and I wondered why there never seemed to be two sides to that story. By that time, I was exploring discussion elsewhere and following up references to scholarly articles to try to get a better understanding of the issue.
It was interesting to see the front page of the issue containing “Guide For The Perplexed” at the top of this thread. That article set up a number of strawmen argument and took delight in chopping them down. By that point, I was able to see what they were up to, and the lack of balance in their assessment. It was my last purchase of Non Scientist.
Of course, they might call themselves the Climate Liberation Army, too…
RockyRoad (20:51:58) :
“I’d also love to see a center-fold devoted just to Gavin Schmidt. In a bikini, of course,”
Arrgh. Where is a protective snip when you need one …?
Okay , so I am a scientist and an active researcher (chemistry education) like these guys. Every single email seems to indicate that these guys (Mann, et al) are constantly jetting off to a conference every other week. First thought is that they are hypocrits like Algore and his outlandish electricity bill. If I am lucky, I go to a conference once every other year, I consider this a victory. What a joke!
1056478635.txt
From: “Mick Kelly”
To: Nguyen Huu Ninh (cered@xxxxxxxxx.xxx)
Subject: NOAA funding
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15 +0000
—-boundary-LibPST-iamunique-1131694944_-_-
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″
Ninh
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.
Politically this money may have to go through Simon’s institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
Best wishes
Mick
Nothing new here. New Scientist had stories about penguins going blind in Argentina due to the Antarctic Ozone hole 30 years ago. There should be a new designation for periodicals like NS, “Taboid Science”.