Christopher Booker’s Telegraph column used Willis Eschenbach’s recent Open Letter to Nature as the basis for the Sunday column:
Booker writes:
On Friday came the fullest and most expert dissection of the Nature paper so far, published on the Watts Up With That website by Willis Eschenbach, a very experienced computer modeller. His findings are devastating. After detailed analysis of the study’s multiple flaws, he sums up by accusing Nature of “trying to pass off the end-result of a long daisy-chain of specifically selected, untested, unverified, un-investigated computer models as valid, falsifiable, peer-reviewed science”.
Read Booker’s column here
Read Willis’ essay here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/24/nature-magazines-folie-a-deux-part-deux
See also:
The code of Nature: making authors part with their programs
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I read C.Booker’s book. It is very good. It is good the truth is coming out now, even if with drips and drags. It has to come out now that everyone in the UK is beginning to realize how expensive “alternative” energy is or will be compared to energy from coal or gas. And with that comes the story that our carbon footprint (CO2) is really good for earth…
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
(just remove the heavy metals, CO and SO2 from the exhaust please)
Vladimir says:
February 27, 2011 at 8:28 am
“Things like that happen when cities are built below sea level.”
Absolutely. It’s not rocket science. And NO is built below sea level. And in a hurricane prone area. The shape of the Missippi delta is governed by hurricanes. Katrina was one such shape-changer.
I remember seeing text books which plotted the shape of the delta over the last 200 years or so. The new delta was plotted after every hurricane. I’ll try to find that plot and post it up here. It used to be easy to find. I’ve looked for it again over the last few years but haven’t found it…
At least on certain blogs dissent is allowed, for example here. It makes one wonder why it is not so open on other blogs. If you are certain of your science then you should be able to prove it and to be able to counter, using scientific discourse, any theories that challenge your own.
But then so much of the language thrown around about climate would not be acceptable in a primary school let alone a place of higher education. It would also seem that complicated computer simulations are damaging science in the wider publics view. If you can not show me why something is the way it is, or at least allow other scientists to check it, then why should I trust you with billions of dollars of taxpayers money? But then some actors in this arena (I can not call them scientists) are so full of their own ego and importance that they seem to think that actually explaining the science is no longer necessary and no challenges are now permitted. Instead we get propaganda and posturing. This surely should be challenged, especially if they are being funded by the tax payer. Maybe we need to clear the decks of these protagonists and open the field to scientists who want to do and are willing to be seen doing, real science. If, as the present cadre believe, that knowing the truth about the climate so important, why are they stopping real scientific discourse? Or do we really have to wait till nature itself gives us the answers. We have already gone through this with the global winter fiasco back in the seventies. If history repeats itself, will science be able to recover?
Damn, it is hard trying to be open minded!
Interesting that clintboon could figure out in only ten minutes that WUWT is “supported” by the Heartland institute. Maybe next time he should try for twelve minutes.
Quoting Sourcewatch as a source about AGW is less reliable that quoting Wikipedia.
For readers who haven’t run across Sourcewatch, sometime go there and search for a couple of pairs of names, one right and one left, and judge for yourself if the site has a bias. For extra credit google sourcewatch and soros.
But even Sourcewatch only said that Anthony was listed as a speaker at Heartland events, not “supported” by.
Liberal ultra-rich do-gooder Warren Buffet holds more than 10% of Munich Re.
http://www.ftd.de/unternehmen/versicherungen/:rueckversicherer-buffett-kauft-noch-mehr-munich-re/50184265.html
Munich Re will let two of its scientists work as lead authors for the next IPCC report.
http://www.munichre.net/en/media_relations/company_news/2010/2010-06-24_company_news.aspx
Expect more bogus science and billion-dollar fraud.
mods, i managed to trigger wordpress’ spam filter by saying fra*d – pls check the bin… Thanks!
[Rescued & posted. ~dbs]
dear Louise’s recent assertion that in CCS the CO2 is sequestered ‘in caverns’…
“Yeah, Yeah, Yeah”, won’t that suffocate a lot of us Scousers?
It’s a good job she’s thick.
Roger Knights says:
February 27, 2011 at 5:00 am
robertvdl says:
February 27, 2011 at 4:09 am
“Sea temperatures of surface waters are rising by around 0.5 degrees a year, …”
That is what the newspaper said , the study said (pag 15):
Desde mediados de los 70 hasta la actualidad ha cambiado esta tendencia con un fuerte ascenso de las temperaturas. El aumento medio de la temperatura superficial del mar para el periodo 1948-2007 varía, dependiendo de la zona de nuestro litoral mediterráneo, entre 0ºC y 0,5ºC, mientras que la temperatura del aire aumentó entre 0,4ºC y 0,9ºC.
Since the mid 70’s until today has changed that trend with a sharp rise in temperatures. The average increase in sea surface temperature for the 1948-2007 period varies, depending on the area of our Mediterranean coast, between 0 º C and 0.5 º C, while air temperature increased between 0.4 ° C and 0.9 º C.
http://www.ma.ieo.es/gcc/cambio_climatico_reedicion.pdf
We can also read on pag 24:
Although the years 1998 and 2005 are among the warmest globally since 1850, there have been strong variations in the oceanographic properties of the Mediterranean, for winter 2004/2005 was a cold anomaly in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea so intense that there were deep water temperatures similar to those obtained in the early twentieth century,
so no reason for panic I think.
Mediterranean Group on Climate Change. Instituto Español de Ocenografía
http://www.ma.ieo.es/gcc/
the study is in Spanish
“Willis hits the news stands in London.”
The Telegraph is a national (not local) newspaper, and is found on news stands up and down the UK.
It is a water planet.
When the water gets below 32 F it is ice.
Wnen the water gets above 32 F it is water once more.
4 something billions of years of that into a computer model you have climate record.
Still chaos is in control even if wish to think other wise.
It is not “sloppy” journalism, but rather “yellow” journalism that is causing us so much grief. Yellow journalism has been running rife since about 1963.
Maurice Garoutte says:
February 27, 2011 at 9:17 am
“Quoting Sourcewatch as a source about AGW is less reliable that quoting Wikipedia.”
Search results
From SourceWatch
You searched for sourcewatch (all pages starting with “sourcewatch” | all pages that link to “sourcewatch”)
No page title matches
There is no page titled “sourcewatch”.
😉
dave ward says:
February 27, 2011 at 8:17 am
“One of the recent comments on Booker’s article lays into Anthony:”
________________________________________________________
The Telegraph trolls are some of the most vile I have ever encountered. They’re as bad as the “regulars” at ThinkProgress and ClimateProgress. I love to read Delingpole’s stuff but the comment threads become so quickly polluted with troll dung as to be unreadable.
Anthony should be pleased to learn he has a stack of checks from Heartland he didn’t even know about. What was even funnier (to me) is that all the vile things this troll accused Heartland as advocating are things I, too, advocate. Energy and mining concerns produce goods society needs. The insurance industry sells a service based on actuarial risk. Wind farms are legalized theft because of their subsidies. The cocaine trade is purely a capitalistic enterprise but that doesn’t make it right.
DirkH says:
February 27, 2011 at 10:22 am
“There is no page titled sourcewatch”
Dirk,
That hurt, and then the circular logic came back around again and it hurt some more.
Homo Sapiens at 5.15am
As you avoid the warmist faction at the Daily Telegraph, you will have missed a Geoffrey Lean item this week that, to my astonishment, gave publicity to a recent report that the huge methane emissions in the Gulf of Mexico resulting from the BP accident had disappeared. He even said it cast doubt on the tipping point scares about the thawing of the permafrost. It was NOT as bad as we feared!
I nearly fell off my chair!
Re Katrina, for what it’s worth, here’s an article describing how Galveston (Texas) coped after their devastating hurricane of 1900. It had no name, but was simply called The 1900 Storm. http://www.1900storm.com/rebuilding/index.lasso
The post-storm civil engineering projects did receive some county, state and federal aid, but were mostly self-financed by the City of Galveston. Much of the entire island-city was elevated 17 feet above sea level. That should take them through the next 100 years or so of “sea level rise due to AGW.” I might add that I’m a Texan, and spent many fond days and weeks in and around Galveston in my youth.
Note that the Galveston seawall was not built to hold back the rising seas due to AGW, but was to combat the storm surge from a large hurricane. Such storm surges reach 15 to 20 feet at times, and depend on many factors such as the size and intensity and speed of the storm, plus the timing of landfall and high or low tide.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ssurge/ssurge_overview.shtml
It appears ridiculous to me that a predicted, but by no means certain, puny increase in sealevel of 10 to 20 inches due to AGW causes such agonizing, while the certainty of hurricane-induced storm surges of 15 to 20 feet does not.
Comments from Piers:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7239
Something really frosts me about Katrina. I read an article from Civil Engineering magazine a few years before Katrina that noted that parts of New Orleans were subsiding about 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch per year due to municipal efforts to manage groundwater intrusion and runoff/flooding. Levee elevations were dropping as a result. Those levees, constructed by corrupt government agencies using sub-standard engineering, were likely not suitable to protect against CAT5 storms to begin with. With subsidence, that protection no doubt crashed below CAT 4 protection levels and eventually proved no defense against the CAT3 Katrina event.
The levees that failed were the weakest links in a string of very weak levee links. Politics, not Nature, failed New Orleans. And will continue to do so in the future. The re-insurers no doubt know this but will use it to create fear and make inordinate profits.
And New Orleans is still subsiding.
A clarification – IIRC, the Civil Engineering article only discussed the incidence and causes of the subsidence, not the politics of why that was happening. The statements on the political causes were my own opinion of the reasons for how the disaster came to be, not theirs. My apologies for any confusion.
Theo Goodwin says:
February 27, 2011 at 8:36 am
“Right on the money, Sir. The flooding occurred because a levee failed.”
Yes, but, it seems obvious that that levee must have failed because of The Warming. The catstrophic increase in temperatures prior to Katrina evaporated the planning skills and budgets of the Army Corp while the horrific northward spread of malaria or something caused small rodents or perhaps invisible penguins to bore holes into it.
It is all connected. It is all catastrophic. And it is remarkably generous of the insurance companies to take on those risks for the little people, even if they are forced to raise their premiums to make that sacrifice for humanity.
Do I need to say ‘sarc’? It is getting to the point where it is getting hard to comment on these stories without being sarcastic.
Except to say in this case, with complete sincerity, go Willis go!
This comment was posted online at the Sunday Telegraph under Booker’s Column:
[[ slioch
Today 04:40 PM
Recommended by
2 people
“we are seeing a likely almost flat temperature graph”
Only if you have a list of 30 degrees to starboard.
Here is a graph of all five temperature series (three surface and two satellite) with the effects of natural variations from El Nino/La Nina and volcanoes and sunspots removed:
http://tamino.files.wordpress….
(or)
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/adj1yr.jpg?w=500&h=325
Still think we are seeing a flat temperature graph?
(Edited by author 2 hours ago) ]]
Can someone explain briefly what the defects are in this “tamino chart” ?
It shows an increase in temperature from 5 sources, “three surface and two satellite”.
I want to explain to others why there is no warming, but I need a pin to bust this chart’s bubble. Anyone?
This mountain-from-molehill tactic is Standard Operating Procedure there and is a mantra of many alarmists: Anyone who has spoken at the conference or dinner of a free-market think tank is “linked to” or “associated with” it, in their weasel words, which they know will be misinterpreted by their credulous readers as meaning “supported by.” Receiving a tiny speaker’s fee and travel expenses hardly counts as support. It’s not like the enormous fees that Gore et al. (including some supposedly neutral environmental journalists) get.
However, our side should bear in mind when replying that in some cases Heartland publishes books by various scorcher-scoffers like Anthony, which makes the association a bit closer–though not by much.
In other words, over a 60-year period the sea surface temperature had risen “between 0 º C and 0.5 º C ….” That’s nothing like what you reported it had said:
Roger Knights
I just reported what they said in the newspaper Typically Spanish . com. Those are not my words. After that I read the study and reported what they said, also not my words. So far I didn’t do anything wrong not even the grammar.
Willis: Open the door, HAL. I’m going to look outside to compare actual conditions to your model.
HAL: I’m sorry Willis. I’m afraid I can’t do that.