Steve McIntyre writes at Climate Audit:
Bishop Hill links to a presentation by Myles Allen to a 2011 conference on Climategate, which like every other such handwringing introspection by climate “communicators”, notably failed to invite any of the major CRU critics – people who might actually have given them some insight into Climategate. In his presentation to climate communicators, Allen gave his own version of Hide the Decline. Allen showed the graphic below, sneering that the entire effect of Climategate was 0.02 deg C in the 1870s.
Figure 1. Allen in front of temperature history.
Needless to say, Allen’s graph has nothing to do with Hide the Decline and the Climategate dossier. Allen’s graph shows the CRUTEM temperature index from 1850, not the 1000 year reconstructions in which Hide the Decline occurred. CRUTEM was only mentioned a couple of times in the Climategate dossier.
Climategate was about the Hockey Stick, though this point was misunderstood by Sarah Palin and now, it seems, Myles Allen.
Full story here at Climate Audit: Myles Allen and a New Trick to Hide-the-Decline
============================================================
Watch the video of Myles Allen doing his best communications schtick here:
I’m sure our UK troll supreme Phil Clarke will bring his famous expert consultancy services to bear in comments to tell us how we’ve all misinterpreted this as he’s done in previous comments here. /sarc
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As we said in England: “He’s thicker than two planks.”
Yeah but no but yeah but…….er……..that’s different…it’s all settled……(throws teddy in the corner).
Climategate was about the Hockey Stick, though this point was misunderstood by Sarah Palin and now, it seems, Myles Allen.>>>>
What makes you think that Myles Allen doesn’t understand it? Seems to me that he’s gone to great lengths to misdirect attention from the actual issue. One can hardly come to the conclusions that Myles Allen has if one has any familiarity at all with the emails in question. The logical conclusion is that either he prepared his presentation without bothering to read the emails in question in the first place (unlikely) or he read the emails and carefully constructed a narrative to misdirect the audience’s attention from what they actually said. I vote for the latter.
I wouldn’t worry about Phil Clarke dropping in. He’s said several times in several threads that if it isn’t published in a journal, it isn’t credible. That being the case, Phil Clarke has already stipulated that in his opinion this presentation has no merit.
The likeness of Myles to Arnold J. Rimmer is unfortunate and strangely compelling.
davidmhoffer
You are right, of course, Myles Allen realised what he was doing. This is a variation on the ploy of frightening the audience by using the rather more subtle one of sighing deeply, shaking your head sadly and pointing out the other side was regretfully mistaken and here’s the proof.
‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken’
tonyb
redcords is right about the similarity. For those unfamiliar with Arnold Rimmer-the pompous dimwit from Red Dwarf- here is his Arnold Rimmer song…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rMsBsiGLns
tonyb
He talks a lot but says nothing. It also appears that he as used the warmists trick of turning up the heat in the room, because he appears to be perspiring heavily. One final comment; did he dress in the dark?
Again we see the same loose morals we saw in Gleick’s case. Climategate mails show a misbehaviour in science, Gleick misbehaved too. The point it is not how much the effect is. the problems are that these scientists cannot be trusted and the ones trying whitewash their wrongdoings cannot be trusted either. Their temperature records are not longer valid either.
Have they corrected the “effect of Climategate in the 1980s?” Nope, they made a new dataset, harcrut4, just to prevent 1998 from being the hottest year of the record. These people have no ethics.
Anthropogenic Global Warming – All deception, all the time, at all the levels.
Perhaps the real problem is the abject failure of the media to point out these chronic and pervasive deceptions. And IMO this largely results from no one in the left-leaning media being prepared to believe the United Nations is running a gigantic scam.
The sad thing is, according to Richard Lindzen’s bio, Allen was one of his PhD students. He must have skipped a lot of lectures.
andrewmharding says:
May 27, 2012 at 12:49 am
He talks a lot but says nothing. It also appears that he as used the warmists trick of turning up the heat in the room, because he appears to be perspiring heavily.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My guess is that this is a side effect of his pants being on fire.
I watched the video and I think a few seconds have been edited out. Right at the beginning there ought to be a short segment where he waves his wand at the audience and screams “stupefy!”
It appears the end is in sight for the big scam. It will be interesting to see at what point the climategate scam is acknowledged by the scientific community to have been an egregious failure of the scientific process to protect against the use of false science to push an agenda that would bankrupt the Western countries and have no significant benefit. At what point will the climategate principals and climategate supporters run for the hills, backtracking to try to protect their reputations and careers?
The so called “skeptics” have known the following for some time. The following is the first real discussion of this reality in the BCC. It appears intelligent, people are becoming aware the Western countries have reached the limit of deficit spending. Financial reality will trump fantasy green scams
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16906738
.
The extreme environmental movement is allocating CO2 limiting policies that that will bankrupt the Western Countries and which will have no significant benefit to the “environment”. Increases in atmospheric CO2 are not a threat to the planet. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 to increase yield and reduce growing times. CO2 is an essential gas for life. Increases in atmospheric CO2 will not result in dangerous warming. The planet’s feedback response to a change in forcing is to resist the change by increasing clouds in the tropics thereby reflecting more sunlight off into space (negative feedback). A doubling of CO2 will result in less than 1C of warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes where the growing season is limited by the number of frost free days. The planet has warmed and cooled before, with the relative changes greater than the current and also matching solar magnetic cycle changes. The majority of the current warming has not caused by increases in atmospheric CO2. The ocean is not going to become acidic.
“Finding the name of a Cambridge University engineering professor, Michael Kelly, on the WSJ letter, I decided to get in touch and find out his reasons for signing.
His basic position is that the kind of energy transformation through which the UK, for example, is planning to go is really tough to achieve in engineering terms, and would be financially ruinous.
To meet the goals of the Climate Change Act (notably an emissions cut of 80% from 1990 levels by 2050) he argues that “we’d really need a command economy of the kind we had in World War 2 if we were really serious about meeting the targets in full.
“What we need to do will bankrupt us if we really go for it and ignore the rest of the world.”
He would, he says, still endorse the rapid transformation if he thought the scientific evidence for needing it was compelling.
“Are you convinced that the world’s going to hell in a handbasket on the basis of the predictions and what’s been happening for the last 10 or 12 years?
“The answer is simply ‘no’.
“I look back 300 years and I find that the temperature went up by more than it’s gone up recently – in Central England from about 1699 to 1729 it went up by nearly 2C – and nobody said that was carbon dioxide.”
…He also cites a recent study on ocean acidification showing that natural short-term variability in ocean pH is greater than the change in the average projected to occur over the next century or so…
…And he has a bet with other Fellows of the Royal Society that temperatures during the current decade will be lower, on average, than during the preceding one, the stake being a case of wine…”
Standard procedure: if in doubt, answer the question you weren’t asked.
The effect of climategate is that we should flush all the pal-reviewed hockeysticks (along with the millions spent building them) and revert to the IPCC’s 2001 version past temperatures.
I read and listened to this. I feel dumber for the experience. Please send this gentleman out our way, we have need for a few new fence posts here in Nevada.
I like to hear how ‘reasoning’ CAGW believers think, so I folled it throough to the end. There was the money shot:
His self-satisfied smirk after saying that tells me that is his main, and most important, message.
This is significant in that they admit Climategate did effect the science, that is important as they are now to the point where they are admitting they manipulated data. That alone should get them fired.
Seems to me that the real point of Climategate, as heard by outsiders, was not the hockey stick or any other specific mathematical failing. What impressed outsiders was the arrogance and dirty dealing of Mann, Jones, Trenberth et al. The emails showed that the insiders KNEW they had poor evidence, and constantly manipulated both media and science to ignore their poor evidence.
“What did he know and when did he know it” is really a dumb question, certainly not a scientific question, but it’s the only question that matters to media and governments. And those emails were full of indications that the “scientists” KNEW they were committing crimes against both science and law.
These eejits seem not to understand that when science is settled it becomes history. If it’s science, it ain’t settled.
Let me hasten to add that whilst there is a physical resemblance, intellectually there is no connection between the erudite Myles, and the bumptious and dim witted Arnold Rimmer.
tonyb
redcords says:
May 27, 2012 at 12:07 am
The likeness of Myles to Arnold J. Rimmer is unfortunate and strangely compelling.
Save us, Dave Lister!
I find the man very sinister – his ploy of “engaging” with sceptics failed to hide that he is yet another extremist (Climate Jihadi, copyright me) who believes the science is settled and hints that whilst he might not like democracy to be suspended, it may come to that. Something has taken over his brain, and it is not truth and it is not reality.
Urederra says: @ur momisugly May 27, 2012 at 12:50 am
These people have no ethics.
___________________________________
That is the take away quote for this whole sorry mess. Perhaps that is what the Heartland Billboard was trying to get across.
He’s simply practicing one of the routines in the AGW Communications Playbook.
In this case, it’s the “blame the media” play. You know, like “scientists weren’t saying in the 70s the World was cooling, it was the media!”.
Well, now we have “Because of the media, we have to talk about the instrument record and not about the Hockey Stick.”
What’s amaziing is the media pawns just ignore this manipulation and manitain their fawning admiration for these guys.