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.
so, if the climate communist narrative is no longer marketable, i reckon that heartland’s raison d’etre vanishes?
or will we find the truth is that any advocacy group considers self sustenance as prime directive?
John F. Hultquist says:
May 27, 2012 at 8:47 am
“A newspaper or a TV news show has a deadline for news reports and those doing the reporting must meet that time for their work to make the news cycle – and justify their pay.”
You misunderstand how most (bad) media outlets operates. They don’t care about being fast or correct. They care that their reporting is consistent with the narrative they want to tell. Journalists learn during their education to avoid numbers (hard data if you will) whenever possible, and they learn how to write stories – much like novelists. The number of newspapers sold or the number of viewers is tracked to see which narrative sticks. Then a decision is made and the media outlet sticks to its narrative. The narrative is only silently dropped once it stops selling.
gnomish,
The Climate Conference is a relatively small part of what Heartland does.
Anthony, thank you for alerting us to the discussion on Climate Audit.
For those coming aboard the serious debate after ClimateGate I , read the comment by Steve McIntyre that references year 2005 : Steve McIntyre Posted May 27, 2012 at 7:03 AM , article: Myles Allen and a New Trick to Hide-the-Decline
Sorry but I don’t know how to copy a link to a comment on another site.
The hockey stick being revisited and for the benefit of those of us who are post ClimateGate I. The age of information that is not easily revised is a great thing.
ROM says:
May 27, 2012 at 6:26 am
======================
Thank you for the statistics. Not at all suprising. Maybe we are a silent majority. (I know that could be an oxymoron). In the real world I only know a couple of Believers and they are quite rabid in their beliefs. The majority of the acquaintences I know think CAGW is a crock of sh…
John F. Hultquist says:
May 27, 2012 at 8:47 am
There is often a comment or two on these sorts of postings about the failure of media types to pick up on the deceptions in presentations such as that by Myles Allen. Are they not supposed to report what they hear and see? The fault is that they hear and see so much from the AGW agenda and very little from the skeptical side.
A newspaper or a TV news show has a deadline for news reports and those doing the reporting must meet that time for their work to make the news cycle – and justify their pay. If one moves the discussion to “investigation” and “opinion” articles without the daily deadline, then there is a reason to lament the lack of skeptical work. Still, blogs and printed books are now available that explain the issues. WUWT shows the cover of Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” to the right of the 8th comment @12:50 am. If skeptics want these sorts of things to be more widely distributed they will have to do this. Don’t expect “reporters” to find the interest or time to do so.
I think you are cutting our modern science journalists way to much slack. I’m old enough to remember when science reporting meant guys like Jules Bergman at ABC and the standards then were entirely different. In our present media there is not only a tremendous asymmetry in the amount of coverage given to the opposing sides in this matter, but also an even more significant asymmetry in the way the stories are written.
If they are reporting on yet another of the endless stream of PR”science” propaganda pieces from the consensus community the reporting will generally be an almost word for word transcription of the press release. If they are feeling especially conscientious they may include a line somewhere near the end that suggests ” some say this may not be as clear cut as indicated”.
On the infrequent occasions when they can be bothered to report something from the skeptic side, the lede will usually be a truncated soundbite quote which often misrepresents what has been stated and by half way down the opening para we’ll get 1-3 quotes from named sources in the climate community declaring that ” everybody who agrees with me says this is completely wrong”. Which is what passes for a debunking for the guys on “TheTeam”.
What is amazing and perhaps the biggest indicator of how bogus this nonsense is, is that despite all the claptrap about the well funded D word machine, (which in reality amounts to less than rounding error for just the funded portion of the CAGW propaganda, neglecting entirely the in kind support offered by academia and education, news organizations, network and cable channel programming, movies and celebutards,corporate PR, etc., which dwarf the rest) the alarmists still can’t close the deal.
I dunno, I think there maybe is a “failure to communicate”. The warmists are either flat-out lying about what they think we think, or there’s a very serious misunderstanding! Consider: the evil Heartland Institute is trying to brainwash our innocent children into having doubts about the existance of climate change. The existance of climate change? Hello? Who questions the existance of climate change? (don’t all speak at once!) “The team” appears to think that climate never changed until humans came along and changed it, but I doubt if they really think that. The real disagreement is whether recent climate change differs in some alarming way from the climate change that’s been happening for a few billion years. Not its existance!
I read somewhere that the BEST data “confirms the hockey stick”. Do “they” understand that the issue is not the “blade” of the hockey stick, but the “handle”? Apparently not.
I could come up with many other examples, but this comment is long enough. Does the “general public” understand what our viewpoint (“viewpoints” – we don’t claim concensus) actually is? Or is there really a “failure to communicate”? If so, what can we do about it?
This appears to be another excuse by “A GRANT FUNDED SCIENTIST” to justify pouring money money into bad faked science. First they invented “consensus science” by thousands of Scientists [did not bother to tell us what kind of scientists they were – history and English duh?] and that the hypothesis had been “PEER REVIEWED” so it is now a PROOF.
Well now how did they do that peer review when the base data and the math equations used to construct the computer models that it appear all the different groups used was manipulated. He now says they mis-communicated the information causing confusion? How can one mis- communicate manipulated scientific conclusions? QUACKERY LOOKING FOR MORE GRANT MONEY TO CONTINUE THE LIE.
Just got this email – could not resist as this man is a Noble prize winning Economist – like Mr. Allen is a real climate/weather scientist – common answer is spend more money –
Krugman: Scientists Should Falsely Predict Alien Invasion So Government Will Spend More Money
By Noel Sheppard | May 26, 2012 | 16:15
5
Change font size: A | A
Last year New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman called for space aliens to invade earth so that the government would spend money to mount a defense thereby stimulating the economy.
As aliens have yet to comply with Krugman’s wishes, he advocated on HBO’s Real Time Friday that scientists should get together and lie about an imminent attack to boost federal spending (video follows with transcript and commentary):
PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: This is hard to get people to do, much better, obviously, to build bridges and roads and healthcare clinics and schools. But my proposed, I actually have a serious proposal which is that we have to get a bunch of scientists to tell us that we’re facing a threatened alien invasion, and in order to be prepared for that alien invasion we have to do things like build high-speed rail. And the, once we’ve recovered, we can say, “Look, there were no aliens.”
But look, I mean, whatever it takes because right now we need somebody to spend, and that somebody has to be the U.S. government.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
High-speed rail to defend ourselves against space invaders?
As absurd as this seems, folks should realize that to a certain extent, scientists are already doing this.
Consider those in the scientific community on Al Gore’s side of the anthropogenic global warming debate.
They have indeed fabricated a doomsday scenario related to carbon dioxide emissions with the expressed intent of getting governments around the world to spend what could end up being trillions of dollars fending off a phantom just as fictitious as Krugman’s aliens.
As the Nobel laureate said, “Whatever it takes.” This is the Machiavellian way zealots view their causes.
And this man not only has a column in the New York Times from which to publicize such nonsense, people actually give him awards for it.
When you think about it, that’s scarier than an actual alien invasion – unless it’s already happened!
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/05/26/krugman-scientists-should-falsely-predict-alien-invasion-so-governmen#ixzz1w60luwqk
Forgot to get notify email –
Petrossa;
What would it be on a worldscale, $$$ thrown to the AGW crowd? Well over a 100 billion at least>>>
You are way low. Wind mill manufacturers and operators are just as much part of the AGW crowd as are the cheer leader scientists. Same for solar power panel manufacturers and operators. Then you have the gigantic subsidies thrown at the agricultural community to grow feedstock for biofuels, plus all the downstream processing into fuel. Plus the reduced efficiency of conventional power grid to make up for the fluctuatiing input from the “green” power sources wind and solar. Plus the reduced efficiency of gasoline powered vehicles due to mixing ethanol with the more efficient gasoline. Plus the higher food prices because we’re diverting food to fuel stock (which is especially egregious as one of the biggest planks in the CAGW platform is that CAGW will cause mass starvation, so they’ve convinced the public to protect the masses from mass starvation… by burning the food).
There was a recent economic report out claiming that enforcing their current green policies will cost Germany more than Greece defaulting on all their bailout money.
$100 Billion? Not even close!
David,
Well stated and on point – the global communities have been lied to and cheated out of hundreds of billions with this false science and false promise of renewable energy. We have had solar technologies for 50 years and yet we still can not make them even marginally economical – power cost is understated as PV panels degrade and produce less power every day – solar furnace technology is so expensive that Spain lost most of their manufacturing.
It is all about the money – wind mills are for Don Quixote to charge and defeat. Ireland paid for the wind operators to just turn them off and they would get paid. he government found the power cost more to use than just to not have it period.
This is a grand scam and the only place for renewable is far off any grid.
A “failure to communicate” excuse is often used by greedy directors and Bankers when they lose a vote at the company AGM .
A “failure to communicate” excuse is often used by tired politicians when the population sees through their policy failures.
So whats new?
Slightly OT, but a significant indication of why assuming we should defer to our supposed intellectual superiors in the science community is largely unjustified.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/05/todays-grade-inflated-lake-wobegon.html
Today’s Grade-Inflated, Lake Wobegon World; Letter Grade of A Now Most Common College Grade
Given the accelerating trend reported and the fact that the last data included was from 2006, we may already be at the point where a majority of students will receive As, as long as they pay the money and show up for class more than occasionally
Myles Allen would like to move the argument away from science and into class action law suits.
“The big question is whether current greenhouse-gas emitters could ever be held liable for the actual impacts of their emissions. The prospect of a class-action suit with up to six billion plaintiffs and an equal number of defendants may seem rather daunting, but if we can overcome these problems in end-to-end attribution………an equitable settlement would apportion liability according to emissions, with some discounting over time to allow for the lifetimes of carbon dioxide anomalies in the atmosphere.”
http://www.climatelaw.org/articles/allen-nature-article.pdf
Six billion plaintiffs and six billion defendants?
Very sad really. Oxford is not what it once was.
perhaps someone should ask a climate scientist that if we climate ‘d-words’are such an extreme minority then why are they so scared of us ? (no death threat intended ) 😉
That actually, the way it’s going, the whole Climate Change issue, will be played out by professionals [failed Professional Climate Communicators], largely leaving the public out of the picture. That’s sad for democracy, but it may ultimately be the best for the planet.
Translation for us communication-impaired skeptics and billions of hapless bystanders – so as to..er..save The World: “Prepare yourselves to become one with The Planet!”
p.s. “Before it’s too late!”
Dave Wendt says: @ur momisugly May 27, 2012 at 11:38 am
Slightly OT, but a significant indication of why assuming we should defer to our supposed intellectual superiors in the science community is largely unjustified.
…. we may already be at the point where a majority of students will receive As, as long as they pay the money and show up for class more than occasionally.
_______________________________
That sounds about right. In the last college level course I took, they were concerned about the fact I had missed one more day than allowed. The college insisted I take a remedial “How to study course” until I pointed out I had a straight 100% average. They flunked me anyway on the basis of attendance. The course was much easier than any I took in high school decades ago. Used to be you could show up for the tests and turn in the homework and no one cared if you showed up for lecture. – “Political Correctness” strikes again
I have had courses that were sticklers for the attendance rules and others that were all about doing the coursework. The “doing the coursework” ones were Math and Physics, the take attendance was a history course.
Of course I am one of those people that if I miss class it means I am in the hospital.
I especially never miss a non-science course since the grading is so dependent on the professors personal views on things. I make sure I am there so I can pick up on his/her biases and regurgitate them on the tests and papers. I may know that the prof is full of hooey, but I get my A.
Gail Combs says:
May 27, 2012 at 9:55 am
DirkH says:
May 27, 2012 at 10:02 am
You seem close to, but not quite there yet, of understanding that “the press” [Gail C.] and the “media outlets” [Dirk H.] are businesses operated with the expectation of profits. You have called their operating procedures propaganda, censorship, and narrative. You interpret these as negatives and would prefer, it seems, that a company owned by someone else tell the stories you think should be told and in a manner you think acceptable. If you want to place your interpretation before the public, you (to quote from my previous comment) “will have to do this” – as Anthony Watts, Joanne Nova, and numerous others have done and continue to do.
The reporter that covers a climate talk on Tuesday may be covering a dog show on Wednesday and a presentation on how to cure diaper rash on Thursday. These news bits are possible because they sell advertising. Advertising pays the bills. Once you understand this, all the rest of it falls into place. Don’t expect something else.
Failure to communicate? More like a spectular success communicating the facts of the matter.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/25/the-inconvenient-truth
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/25/united-nations-climate-talks-nothing-but-hot-air
spectacular
Climate gate memos and McKitrick’s analysis support the assertion that data was manipulated and the scientific process thwarted to prevent the uncovering of the scam to push a flawed political agenda?
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/25/united-nations-climate-talks-nothing-but-hot-air
UN climate summits a colossal waste of public funds?
“…The UN proposing a $100 billion dollars a year of Western Country tax payer dollars to be sent to corrupt third world governments after skimming off by corrupt UN officials?
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/25/united-nations-climate-talks-nothing-but-hot-air
UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres insisted it was critical the Bonn talks made further progress on how funds will be raised – extorted might be another apt word — from major industrialized nations and directed to poorer countries in the year’s after 2020.
This epic global fundraising will underwrite something called the Green Climate Fund, to be run under the paternalistic auspices of the UN. The fund will need $100 billion a year from 2020 onwards to operate. No precise agreement at Bonn on how it would work, despite Christiana Figueres exhortations, just consensus that major developed and industrialised countries like Canada will have to foot the bill. So there.
…All of which pretty much reflects the UN as it is today; a preening debating society that marries incompetence with good intentions, meddling with over-reaching ambition. It should also surprise nobody to hear such hand-wringing doesn’t come cheap. The regular budget of the UN is nearly $1.9 billion per year. It pays for basic UN activities, staff and basic infrastructure at 760 United Nations Plaza, New York, New York. The UN then spends an additional $15 billion annually on activities that include everything from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, UNESCO, the World Bank, the World Health Organisation — and endless climate change meetings in exotic locales.Funding comes from member nations. Canada is the seventh largest UN funding provider, meaning Canadian taxpayers and their dollars are helping to pay for all this — literally and figuratively.
Evidence of manipulation of public opinion to push the climate change agenda by a lead AR4 IPCC author?
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns….
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as he IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. ”
I am shocked! Shocked! There is wide spread evidence of a “green” scam. The Western countries do not have billions of deficit dollars to spend on green scams.
John F. Hultquist says:
May 27, 2012 at 1:34 pm
You seem close to, but not quite there yet, of understanding that “the press” [Gail C.] and the “media outlets” [Dirk H.] are businesses operated with the expectation of profits. You have called their operating procedures propaganda, censorship, and narrative…..
__________________________________
No John, since I was among the farmers trying to get the truth out, I did my homework. You are correct that the advertisers are part of the picture but a more important part is this:
Things have not changed much:
That does not include the papers where they hold the mortgage or where former bank employees are on the board of directors. For example AOL bought out the Huffington Post.
On the board of directors we have a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (Alberto Ibargüen), a former Director of CIT Group Inc (Susan M. Lyne) and a former partner at Plainfield Asset Management, (Karen E. Dykstra) who “manages investment capital for high net worth individuals based in the United States and abroad.” The chairman (Tim Armstrong former VP of Google) is also Chairmen of The Advertising Council Inc. who just won a $2,049,078 federal contract from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency for ready campaign support services.”
General_Electric is the world’s second largest company after J.P. Morgan Chase.
J.P. Morgan Chase has been the training ground for several Chairman of the World Bank. Three presidents, John J. McCloy, Eugene Black and George Woods all worked at Chase before taking up positions at the World Bank. David Rockefeller has also for many years hosted annual luncheons at the family’s Westchester County Pocantico estate for the world’s finance ministers and central bank governors, following the annual Washington meetings of the World Bank and IMF.
The World Bank is 100% behind CAGW link. The Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002 was Robert Watson. In 1996, Watson joined the World Bank as Senior Scientific adviser and is now the World Bank’s Chief Scientist and Senior Adviser for Sustainable Development (Agenda 21) At Copenhagen, the “Danish text” leaked to the Guardian, The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank…
My comment was based on research not hand waving.
“That actually, the way it’s going, the whole Climate Change issue, will be played out by professionals [failed Professional Climate Communicators], largely leaving the public out of the picture. That’s sad for democracy, but it may ultimately be the best for the planet.”
This sounds a lot like “keep the faith, the mother ship will be picking us up soon”.