Christopher Booker on BBC and The Royal Society bias, ClimateGate, The Met cold winter forecast and 2010 hottest year ever:
Horizon’s “Science Under Attack” turned out to be yet another laborious bid by the BBC to defend the global warming orthodoxy…… Hours of film of climate-change “deniers” are cherrypicked for soundbites that can be shown, out of context, to make them look ridiculous…… Although Sir Paul presented himself as the champion of objective science, he frequently showed that, for all his expertise in cell biology, he knows little about climate.
The fact that someone is an expert in one particular field – even if he is President of the Royal Society – gives him little more authority to pronounce on issues with which he is unfamiliar than a man holding forth in a pub……. the BBC has been turned, in Peter Sissons’ words, into a mere “propaganda machine”……. Comparing the actual data…… shows that for four years the original figure has been adjusted downwards. Only for 2010 was the data revised upwards, by the largest adjustment of all, allowing the Met Office to claim that 2010 was the hottest year of the decade……
h/t to Amino Acids in Meteorites
Chris Wright @ur momisugly 11.37:
The excuse of the NASA scientist would be that he is a glaciologist, but that makes him a ‘Climate Scientist’ whose expertise should never be questioned as long as he is on message.
Incidentally, I’m rather amused by the attribution of the howler on the carbon cycle to Booker. Geoff Chambers and I pointed this out in an exchange at 2100hrs GMT on Climate Resistance, cross-posted at Bishop Hill, fully 22 hours before Booker posted his piece to appear next day in the Sunday Telegraph, in which he said he had ‘noticed’ the mistake. I know journalists like to protect their sources, but a little attribution would be nice! Actually, Booker might have not been reading any blogs on this, but I was surprised that Delingpole attributes the point to Booker, because I immediately drew Delingpole’s attention to the mistake on Friday evening, using the ‘Contact’ section on his website.
Collin Maessen says:
January 30, 2011 at 10:49 am
“Also Booker who wrote the column is again someone who also says that second hand smoking and asbestos don’t cause cancer.”
You obviously suffer from poor reading and comprehension skills. Christopher Booker has never said that asbestos is not a cause of cancer. He does however differentiate between blue asbestos which he identifies as a carcinogen, and white asbestos which is not.
His asbestos crusade is against the psuedo scientists and government bodies that apply the rightly strict laws on the handling and use of redundant, highly dangerous, blue asbestos, to the innocuous white asbestos, causing thousands of pounds of unnecessary cleanup expenses to those unfortunate enough to discover white asbestos on their property.
If this story of official stupidity appears familiar and chimes with the official stance on global warming, perhaps you should reanalyse your AGW credo in case your impediment has again led you astray.
Collin Maessen says: “Also Booker who wrote the column is again someone who also says that second hand smoking and asbestos don’t cause cancer. And even has been critical on the theory of evolution saying “rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions”.
Something of a misrepresentation.
Booker says “WHITE asbestos is not a particularly hazardous chemical”. It isn’t.
Booker says “The dangers of secondhand smoking have been ridiculously overhyped”. They have, and there is now evidence to demonstrate this.
Booker does not argue against evolution but against those who claim it explains absolutely everything about all life on Earth and who try and silence any counter debate (just like the high priests of AGW).
Folks, you may be wondering why you seem to be getting more attention from obsessive envronmentalists parroting their religion. There is a campaign; see below:
http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384
Sceptic alerts
Are you fed up with sceptics and pseudo-scientists dominating blogs and news articles with their denialist propaganda? Well, fight back! We are trying to create an online army of online volunteers to try and tip the balance back in the favour of scientific fact, not scientific fiction.
To sign up, enter your e-mail address in the box below:
You will receive one e-mail alert per day containing links to various climate change news articles. We need you to politely explain in the comments section why global warming is actually happening and why it’s not a big conspiracy. You can contribute to as little or as many articles as you like, just dive in.
An Engineer says:
January 30, 2011 at 9:54 am
I saw this programme. The only thing it changed was my opinion of the Royal Society and the Nobel Prize committee
Also you should remember, the Nobel Prize committee awarded the Peace Prize to Al Gore A few years ago (7 maybe) and they fast tracked it they are proud to say. Normally it takes about 20 years.
homo sapiens says: January 30, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Booker says “WHITE asbestos is not a particularly hazardous chemical”. It isn’t.
Booker says “The dangers of secondhand smoking have been ridiculously overhyped”.
Totally correct…. they got away with the Ozone Hole pseudo-science nonsense… thus emboldened they stepped up the noise level for the current cycle of CAGW propaganda and pseudo-science…. just another brick in the wall.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Py5aPLG348&w=480&h=390]
David Ball says:
January 30, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Evanjones, you know I have a great deal of respect for you. Co2 follows temperature change. Water vapor is being ignored completely as the predominate “greenhouse” (a misleading term) gas. Co2′s effect, if any, is completely ….
Understood or not I can’t see even this parliament or government introducing legislation to control H2O emissions. Are you suggesting they might repeal the Climate Change Act concerning CO2 emissions?
Kitefreak says: January 30, 2011 at 7:40 am
I don’t even watch television anymore, for these reasons.
Best plan… the newspapers went first… then the television.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfUB4Wv5ooI&w=480&h=390]
Well, this absurdity will call for and justify a “counterpoint” program on another channel. That may be it’s most lasting legacy.
Chris Wright says:
January 30, 2011 at 11:37 am
Smokey says:
January 30, 2011 at 8:58 am
“Nurse is either ignorant of the facts, or he lied outright. Unless someone can point out a third possibility?”
Actually it was the NASA scientist who lied.
I watched part of the program but missed the significance of those statements about the carbon cycle. Fortunately, I recorded it and I’ve taken another look.
I’m utterly astounded. Here we have a NASA scientist lying on an almost biblical scale. I think serious complaints should be lodged with NASA and the BBC. I’ve made a transcript:
Scientist: “We know how much fossil fuel we take out of the ground.We know how much we sell. We know how much we burn, and that is a huge amount of carbon dioxide, about 7 gigatons per year right now.
Natural causes can only produce through volcanoes popping off and things like that and coming out of the ocean, only about 1 gigaton per year, so there’s just no question that human activities is producing a massively large proportion of carbon dioxide”.
The problem is that the scientist interviewed was a little confused. At first, he was referring to volcanoes popping off, which do produce about 1GTon per year. The rest of his phrase was awkward and inaccurate, “and things like that and coming out of the ocean” seems to me an unfortunate slip of the tongue. It opens up the interpretation that oceans emit only 1 GT of CO2 per year which is certainly incorrect. I would have edited this out of the program.
Who was this scientist? Was the scientist answering a specific question posed by Paul Nurse, or was he making a statement in response to an open ended invitation to comment? If it was a specific question, can you tell us what it was?
It is true that human emissions are smaller than the total of natural emissions, but larger than volcanic emissions. If I were editing the video, I would not have included that statement because it was ambiguous and prone to misinterpretation.
Good science needs good scientists. It does not need appeals to authority which impede progress at present.
The unedifying rubber stamping of a particular view of science, by august bodies and their Presidents, is very poor science. One can dissect the public statements of these self-important people and find many specific errors, with the main general error being the acceptance of scientific summaries without participation in the benchwork that arrived at the results.
Fame is not a substitute for verification of science.
The essence of the problem above is given in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ by Ayn Rand 1975, at several places. Here is one, a statement issued by the State Science Institute after failing to control the succes of the new alloy, Rearden Metal, and its owner –
“It may be possible that after a period of heavy usage, a sudden fissure may appear, though the length of this period cannot be predicted …. The possibility of a molecular reaction , at present unknown, cannot be entirely discounted … Although there is no evidence to support the contention that the use of the metal should be prohibited, a further study of its properties would be valuable.”
In the book, Reardon did not call for a Lisbon conference to settle differences. When asked if he understood that “The State Science Institute is a government organization … Business men are particularly vulnerable these days, I am sure you understand me.”
Reardon replied “No, Doctor Potter. I didn’t understand. If I did, I’d have to kill you.”
Many economists regard the whole book as essential reading for a rounded education. It has very pertinent messages for the current global warming topic. Read it – then don’t claim thereafter that all this is new to you.
(I also posted this on Judith Curry’s blog today because there are somewhat different readerships).
Readers should have something like this site handy when reading Collin Maessen. It might even be a fun drinking game. See how many logical fallacies you can spot. For example:
“However more snowfall is consistent with global warming as warm air can hold more moisture.”
Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (conclusion based on consistency) and Affirming the Consequent (If P, then Q. Q. Therefore P.)
“Also Booker who wrote the column is again someone who also says that second hand smoking and asbestos don’t cause cancer.”
Ad hominem.
“One of this would be that the arctic wouldn’t be experiencing the current melting. And if it wasn’t anthropogenic we wouldn’t be seeing the changes in the infrared absorption patterns in the atmosphere we are currently seeing.”
Denying the antecedent (If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore not Q.).
This site.
The ad hominem was also a red herring.
Amino Acids in Meteorites: Not sure I see the importance of whether or not the emails were hacked but my understanding is that the evidence points to a source in Russia.
With regard to the claim that the Nature paper spliced two sets of data, I think you are confusing the Nature paper with a cover illustration for a World Meteorological Organisation report. The following quotes are from
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-hide-the-decline.html
“Regarding the “hide the decline” email, Jones has explained that when he used the word “trick”, he simply meant “a mathematical approach brought to bear to solve a problem”. The [Muir Russel] inquiry made the following criticism of the resulting graph (its emphasis):
[T]he figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2]
But this was one isolated instance that occurred more than a decade ago. The Review did not find anything wrong with the overall picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC reports”, and concludes that divergence “is not hidden” and “the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers.” [1.3.2]…
In summary, while the inquiry did criticize an individual graph, it found no evidence of CRU intentionally manipulating tree ring data or downplaying the associated uncertainties to mislead the public.”
With regard to discusion of the trick in the nature paper, this is in the form of highly specialised mathematical analysis, but a plain English sttement of conclusions is given as:
“But certain sub-components of the proxy dataset (for example, the
dendroclimatic indicators) appear to be especially important in
resolving the large-scale temperature patterns, with notable
decreases in the scores reported for the proxy data set if all
dendroclimatic indicators are withheld from the multiproxy network.
On the other hand, the long-term trend in N[orthern]H[emisphere] is relatively
robust to the inclusion of dendroclimatic indicators in the network,
suggesting that potential tree growth trend biases are not influential
in the multiproxy climate reconstructions.”
Philip Shehan (January 30, 2011 at 6:12 am) says: “Climate skeptics like Booker are still engaging in wilful ignorance or dliberate dishonesty by claiming that key data was distorted.”
Philip, read the Harry readme file then perhaps reconsider your statement.
eadler,
The point is that a NASA glaciologist, speaking outside his expertise, committed a howler that anyone with a basic understanding of the science of climate change recognises as a howler. Nurse, in trying to defend ‘Science’ stepped outside his area of expertise and swallowed the howler, even discussing its meaning, without recognising it. That it didn’t end up on the cutting room floor demonstrates that neither he nor the production team had the slightest idea they had committed a howler, and it trying to demonstrate why we should all accept the word of the Gods of Science, demonstrated the exact opposite: that we should adhere to the motto ‘Nullius in Verba’, even if the President of the Royal Society apparently does not.
As Gen Y would put it: Epic Fail! Or, as those of us who follow the real, round ball football would put it, an own goal.
Robert Stevenson says:
January 30, 2011 at 3:33 pm
I am saying that Co2 effect is so minuscule as to be inconsequential. If repealing useless government programs such as the one you mentioned is a result, so be it.
Defending the indefensible is an ethical minefield, BBC and CBC are going extinct. They are suiciding and it is fun to watch, any tax dollar spent on such organisations really demonstrates the contempt govt has for the working stiff. The overwhelming support for AWG and the IPCC, by our govts will help effect large cuts in govt as well, as the watchdogs of govt are stupid or crooks. Try to find out who in your govt signed off on the IPCC reports before their acceptance by govt.Or ask your govt to produce the science upon which policy is based in AWG matters, all I get is hand waving toward the IPCC. Bring on the Congressional hearing in the USA, then watch the CYA festival begin in the hall of govt.
Thanks, all, for the information about Booker’s column. And thanks for the link to the site about logical fallacies, Bart. A useful tool indeed.
@ur momisugly Aynsley Kellow Jan 30 1:33 PM
“Incidentally, I’m rather amused by the attribution of the howler on the carbon cycle to Booker. Geoff Chambers and I pointed this out in an exchange at 2100hrs GMT on Climate Resistance, cross-posted at Bishop Hill, fully 22 hours before Booker posted his piece to appear next day in the Sunday Telegraph….”
I mentioned it on the Grauniad initially at 7:32 PM on Jan 26th, then at 3:37 PM on 27th Jan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jan/24/james-delingpole-tv-interview?showallcomments=true#comment-fold
A very active thread went quiet very quickly after the second comment.
I just wanted to say thank you to Jordan for making this point:
“And to the the folks of WUWT – please show your support to James Delingpole. In one respect, James has arrived through this programme (that’s why I think the smear tactic has backfired). But James will be the UK whipping boy for the climate extremists and that’s not going to be easy.”
It’s true. As I shall be explaining in this week’s Spectator ( http://www.spectator.co.uk ) in my You Know It Makes Sense column (up on Thursday) , the BBC stitched me up like a kipper. It wasn’t so much a science documentary as a “Get Delingpole!” hatchet job. And I ain’t being paranoid here. It’s not about me, of course, but about what I have come to represent. For better or worse I have become of one the most prominent sceptics in Britain and the warmists don’t like it.
So heed my recent mauling and consider: “There but for the grace of God go all of us.” (Oh, and don’t kid yourself you would have been any better: when the opposition have three whole hours of interview footage to edit at will and the purpose of the programme is to portray sceptics as enemies of science (hence the title: Science Under Attack) you ain’t going to come out smelling of violets however you try). Your support would be much appreciated.
Billy liar
Followed your interesting link. This is what is behind the capaign to flood sites such as this with ‘rational’ protestors.
http://www.campaigncc.org/whoweare
Our friend George Monbiot is honorary President. Got to be worth an article on this group Anthony?
Tonyb
James Delingpole
If you are still reading this can you contct me by clicking on my name and following the contact me information?
I write historical items on climate change.
tonyb
Philip Shehan says:
January 30, 2011 at 6:09 pm
“Regarding the “hide the decline” email, Jones has explained that when he used the word “trick”, he simply meant “a mathematical approach brought to bear to solve a problem”.
Hooey. The decline was hidden so as not to reveal that the proxy record, upon which dire conclusions were based, was very questionable. Problem solved, indeed.
Probably too late with this now.
Posted last week (25/1/11), here it is again – albeit modified slightly.
Should the BBC wish to continue their totally biased views, here’s some new TV programmes they might like to make:
Drown, Crash & Burn Tuesday BBC1 9.00pm
A controversial documentary about reducing warming and the risk of human extinction by removing all the world’s deliberately man-made CO2 from self-inflatable life jackets, car air bags and as used as a propellant for every fire extinguisher. “It might hurt a bit more if you crash – but just think of the planet”
Unifizzy Challenge BBC2 Mondays @ur momisugly 8.00pm
Boffins from PepsiCo, Schweppes & Coke compete to see who produces the most man-made CO2 from their combined global sales of carbonated drinks. “Just by unscrewing the lemonade tops” says one contestant “we caused more global warming than starting up our cars.”
The Emissions Factor Part 3 – The Bakery
If you were fascinated by the first two episodes (Part 1 – The Winery, Part 2 – The Brewery), you’ll enjoy this. From baker’s yeast to bicarbonate of soda, we lift the lid on the startling amount of CO2 which rises annually from the entire world’s bread production, cake manufacture and the snack foods industry. The statistics are food for thought – especially when one Australian snack-food factory manager boasts that “90 megatonnes of CO2 is produced annually to make ‘Twisties’ so light & crunchy.” Don’t miss next week’s instalment; Part 4 – Descaling Kettles – a closer look at the ‘fizzy’ reaction of mild hydrochloric acid on limescale.
Pardon Me
A fast-paced elimination quiz where contestants get to eat as many deliberately cultivated brussel sprouts and baked beans as possible. Amazingly, 25% Carbon Dioxide, 55% Nitrogen & 20% of flammable oxygen/methane/hydrogen ensues. Armageddon. And it’s all man-made.