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.
I don’t think there’s any question where NewScientist stands as far AGW and objectivity after today and this atrocious online article:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html
Granted, it was in response to this equally terrible piece:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
but still, the former link is not what you’d expect from a respectable science publication.
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?
In case you didn’t take notes, let met give you mine.
Dr. Jasper Kirkby Explains Chemtrails
DR (20:07:35) :
Tom in Texas
That solution is simple: install solar/wind (free energy) powered heaters to defrost the lights.
What my dad used to describe as a “long way round for a short cut”.
Martin B (23:24:01)
Yes, nice name but I’m afraid it’s ‘New Scientist’ as in ‘Brave New World’.
New Scientist has been a Marvel Comics title for many years. Its a pity the newprint smears so badly when used for the only viable purpose
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (23:34:55) :
I suspect CLA stands for Coordinating Lead Author. Each chapter of the AR4 had more than one of them.
crosspatch (23:34:11) :
“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.”
Have a look at:
http://extrinsic.blog.com/2009/12/03/climategate-behind-the-screen/
Some unscrambling needed here, please.
Under the heading “UPDATE: More bullying from scientists” an email from Mann is shown including the following very unlikely passage. It reads to me like like a blog comment from a skeptic that has become conflated with the Mann email, because It is not present in the original, as anyone checking the url will see.
The extraneous passage:
“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.”
I too used to really enjoy New Scientist. Like many others I stopped buying the expensive subscription when they placed themselves out of scientific scepticism with their comments and articles on global warming. There was no point reading it anymore – it was/is just a mouthpiece for warmists.
Look folks
The reality of all this is that the ‘peer-reviewed publication system’ is what drives scientists.
Their ‘performance reviews’ are almost totally based on ‘publication record’, ‘impact factors’ etc etc. It’s totally in their interests to keep editors onside, both in terms of publishing their work but also, in more general terms, to keep their field as a ‘hot topic’. Which means reviews of the field, which occur from time to time, should be favourable to the continued status of the field in question, at least in the eyes of the scientist…..
In the mid 1990s when I did life sciences research, the top buzz words in cancer research were p53, angiogenesis and gene therapy. You had to get those in your grant proposal somehow. It upped success rates enormously.
Now as it happens, drugs targeting blood vessel growth for cancer (angiogenesis) are now major drug company products and research programmes. p53 research was enormous and hugely valuable, although that protein didn’t become a drug target per se. Gene therapy was pushed commercially too quickly and a few problems emerged. The scientists went back to the drawing board and the field may mature in the next two decades in commercial terms.
That’s the upside of the story.
Equally, if two research groups have different theories about something, the loser’s career may have a serious tail to it. Sometimes the death fights have a better explanation. There was a huge controversy in the 1980s about what protein constituted the ‘gap junction’, a means by which small molecules travel between adjacent cells. A British group said a 16kDa protein, the Yanks a 28kDa programme. Iranian stand-offs, cold wars, you name it, it happened. The truth in the end? The 16kDa protein bound the 28kDa protein as part of a complex!
This is the way some scientists are. Grubby, pushy, ambitious, mean and two-faced.
Those are the manifestations of ‘ambition’ in many people.
Most scientists don’t have the skill of Pele, so they either ride Pele’s coat-tails or they try and nick their ideas, wear them down and make them depressed by being nasty to them.
That’s how life works.
No point dreaming otherwise.
Same in politics isn’t it?
Same in business, isn’t it?
So why do we expect it to be different in science????
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 seems to be a leitmotiv of all fraudsters, to accuse someone else of exactly their own chief fault. As if they know…
Jordan (00:00:57) : I once bought the Non Scientist every week…
Jordan, I think you mean New Scientist here. We’re gonna have to be careful which names we use, now!
I’ll ask this again later if I don’t get a response. I have to ask… how much vital science has been lost because the alarmists were able to pervert the peer-review process and keep valid scientific papers from being published?
How can that damage be undone?
Interesting, I can now get WUWT in China. It was blocked for some time.
M
Non Sensensists might be a good name.
David Corcoran (01:15:20) :
I am not qualified to answer your question in detail, but in a more general sense, I imagine that the only science to come through all this unscathed will be Political Science.
Research is done, papers are prepared, papers are submitted for publication, and are rejected for some reason.
What to do? Rework the papers or publish elsewhere with different reviewers. I suspect the latter is what happens.
To recover what was lost, you must look where it may be found (buddhist wisdom).
Anon (21:26:52) :
… 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 perceived as ruining the pristine confines of a limited world? Such pessimism is a formula for a “no future” world.
…This sounds like the denunciation of Charles Darwin by the Church following “The Origin of Species”. What they want is science to be rejected in favor of faith. Never mind the evidence, if someone believes in a falsehood strongly enough it “becomes” the truth.
David Corcoran (01:15:20) : wrote
“I’ll ask this again later if I don’t get a response. I have to ask… how much vital science has been lost because the alarmists were able to pervert the peer-review process and keep valid scientific papers from being published?
How can that damage be undone?”
+1000
” I’m beginning to believe that this [snip] is way too vast for it not to be centrally controlled or instigated by a small group of powerful people who can throw a [snip]load of money at their pet projects, if need be”
I dunnnow, it seems to me that the ‘vaster’ some [snip] is, the less likely it is that it can be ‘centrally controlled, ‘ and the more likely that the [snip] hits the fan.
Conspiracies are ‘plots’, and plots are necessary (or used to be) to making up fictions. Sherlock Holmes felt in every apparently unrelated crime ‘the presence of this force’, i.e. the organizing force of evil incarnate in Dr Moriarty, the ‘Napoleon of Crime’, who sat like a spider at the center of a web of Manichaean intrigue.
Of course Holmes never existed in what passes for real life, and besides, he was a cocaine fiend, which would account in part at least for the paranoid mentation.
Speaking of Napoleons, in the 1960’s, on __The Man from Uncle__ Napoleon Solo, played by Robert Vaghan, and Ilya Kuriokin, played by David McCallum, battled the evil empire of THRUSH.
Then there is always Austin Powers.
Damn the Illuminati! Phasers on stun!
I’d like to recommend an interesting blog that deserves more visits: Die Klimazwiebel by climate scientists Hans von Storch and Eduardo Zorita, who are not in the “Climategate dirt”. (Don’t worry, they write mainly in English!)
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/
Perhaps one reason the green PR has been so successful is that greenie culture has a lot of elements of feminism and postmodernism in it, which makes greenie culture think that aggression, competition, success, and progress are all bad things. Instead they like the notions of equality, diversity, bonding, harmony. But everybody is still human, and we all have some competitive and aggressive urges, which are normal and healthy and we’d usually call them “drives”. But greenie culture puts greenies in a position of having to disown parts of themselves. They disown their own aggression, competition, and drives. But because those things can’t be disappeared—they are part of being human—these feelings continue to exist in greenies, but disowned, so they project them onto others. They project negative aggression, greed, selfishness, and competitiveness onto other groups, like oil companies, and their paid shills, the “sceptics”. I think perhaps this phenomenon, this shadow psychology, is why so many greenies can be so convinced that anybody promoting AGW is sincere and trustworthy, and anybody sceptical of AGW is doing so for nefarious reasons and can’t be trusted.
FWIW I didn’t renew my subscription of NS due to their poor climate coverage.
I stopped reading NS years ago because the science was junk. A typical article will be about some harebrained idea with no scientific merit, often accompanied by a trick photograph and containing the line, “although this idea breaks the laws of thermodynamics…” before going on to explain why time travel is possible. I think people have given it too much credit because they think it is a scientific journal. Bring back Nigel Calder!
Wow…. Did a spotted quoll really build a wind farm?
Nigel Calder’s earlier comment above appears to be correct.
You have a SNAFU in the more bullying from scientists email which has an ending regarding Nigel Calder and NS which is NOT in the original email.
It is missleading folk e.g. Lucy Skywalker
Ok, thanks. Time to read the mails again….