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.
I take Professor Allen’s final comment as a warning. People aren’t buying their alarmist message anymore, so the next move by these arrogant narcissists is an end-around the people. Grant money and awards aren’t enough; they want power, too. They’ve always been after the power but they expected us to willingly hand it over to them and beg them to save us. Now that plan isn’t working, they will try to bypass the voice of the people and establish a “global authority” to give them the power they crave. But don’t fall for the convenient excuse that these elitist “professionals” want to save the planet. They just want to rule over it. Like Animal Farm, they expect to live in the comfortable farmhouse while they dictate rules for the rest of us to follow as we try to eek out a meager living in the barn.
No one got this one refered to?
Gail Combs says:
May 27, 2012 at 3:32 pm
After changing the focus from “reporters” to bankers and other owners of newspapers and television you have done a fine and through job of making my two main points.
Namely, “. . .there is a reason to lament the lack of skeptical work.”
and, . . .
“If skeptics want these sorts of things to be more widely distributed they will have to do this.”
—————————-
Dave Wendt says:
May 27, 2012 at 10:53 am
“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.”
Good point. Thanks. I too remember. Lately, though, I haven’t paid attention to national TV, especially the old big-3. I did find this about CNN:
http://scienceprogress.org/2008/12/cnn-decides-it-can-cover-science-without-dedicated-science-reporters/
Even Chris Mooney, in one of his sane moments, has his say:
http://scienceprogress.org/2008/10/the-science-writers-lament/
“This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled with all sorts of preparedness arguments and misrepresentations as to the present condition of the United States Army and Navy, and the possibility and probability of the United States being attacked by foreign foes.”
Gail, Oscar Calloway was an Isolationist Democrat — in this instance, the newspapers were correct about our state of preparedness (it sucked) for war in 1917. About the possibility and probability of attack by a belligerent — not so much.
Max Hugoson says:
May 27, 2012 at 7:13 pm
No one got this one refered to?
I think that scene was the first thing that popped into everyone’s mind, Max. Thanks for the vid!
I typed “spectular” rather than “spectacular” in an earlier post. Was I subconsciously equating “spectular” with consensus climate science?
Heh!
Gail Combs says:
May 27, 2012 at 3:32 pm
partial quote:
General_Electric is the world’s second largest company after J.P. Morgan Chase.
Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA; CMCSK) and General Electric (NYSE: GE) yesterday closed their transaction to create a joint venture…
The new company is 51 percent owned by Comcast, 49 percent owned by GE,…
==================================
G.E. is preparing for the presidential election in 2012.
Last election in 2008 it was NBC (IIRC).
Where are the greens screaming “monied corporate interests”?
Think about it with regards to the next appliance you buy. Think about it when a wind farm goes up in your neighborhood. Think about it when your electric bill skyrockets. Think about it when other policies unrelated to G.E. interests get shoved down your throat as a result of the possible outcome of the pending election. Think about why G.E. has such an interest in communications just before a presidential election. Just think about it!
With regards to the above comment, I forgot something.
Thank you Gail for the research you’ve done and for sharing it.