Guest essay by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. (reprinted with permission from his blog)
That tireless ecological zealot over at The Guardian, Dana Nuccitelli, took the opportunity of our 25th anniversary of satellite-based global temperature monitoring to rip us a new one.
Comparing John Christy and me to “scientists who disputed the links between smoking and cancer”, Dana once again demonstrates his dedication to the highest standards of journalism.
Well done, Grauniad.
I prefer to compare us to Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who rejected the scientific consensus that peptic ulcers were due to too much stress or spicy food. While they eventually received the Nobel Prize after years of ridicule and scorn from the medical research community, we have no illusions that we will ever be credited for our long-standing position that global warming fears have been overblown. I’m sure the UN’s IPCC will find a way to take credit for that, and get another Peace Prize for it.
(I wonder if Marshall and Warren were being paid off by the spicy food lobby?)
The “97% of all climate scientists agree“ meme that Dana bitterly clings to has been thoroughly discredited…. as if scientific consensus on something so poorly understood as climate change (or stomach ulcers 15 years ago?) really means anything, anyway.
To prove that Dana should probably avoid trying to interpret simple graphs, let’s examine this chart he so likes, which allegedly shows that our (UAH) global temperature dataset has been continually adjusted for errors over the years, resulting in an increasing warming trend:
Now, setting aside the fact that (1) we actually do adjust for obvious, demonstrable errors as soon as they have been found (unlike the IPCC climate modelers who continue to promote demonstrably wrong models), and (2) RSS gets about the same (relatively benign) warming trend as we do, let’s examine some other popular temperature datasets in the same manner as the above graph:
Looks a lot like Dana’s plot, doesn’t it?
Do you want to know why? Is it really because all those other temperature dataset providers were also busily correcting mistakes in their data, too?
No, it’s largely because as the years go by, the global temperature trend changes, silly.
About the only thing Dana got reasonably correct is his article’s tag line, “John Christy and Roy Spencer are pro-fossil fuel and anti-scientific consensus.”
You’re damn right we are. But not because we are paid to say it, which we aren’t. (What are you paid to say for The Guardian, Dana?)
We are pro-fossil fuel because there are no large scale replacements available, wind and solar are too expensive, and you can’t just cut fossil fuel use without causing immense human suffering. Yes, I’ve talked to some of the top economists about it.
And indeed we are “anti-scientific consensus” because the consensus (which mostly just follows the average of the IPCC climate models) has been demonstrated to be wrong.
Finally, if Dana objects to me tiring of being called a “global warming denier” (with the obvious Holocaust connotations) for the last seven eight years and fighting back, read this and then tell me where I am wrong.
I am not getting any ploy-lines on the first graph.
Is there something supposed to on this graph?
you are supposed to connect the dots yourself, apparently.
But, but – they aren’t numbered!
/Warmist
+1
You know you’re over the target when you’re taking flak.
Flak – Evading anti-aircraft Fire – World War II training film
“We are pro-fossil fuel because there are no large scale replacements available, wind and solar are too expensive, and you can’t just cut fossil fuel use without causing immense human suffering. Yes, I’ve talked to some of the top economists about it.”
Thank you for this accurate information. How stupid or misinformed are those who think the 15 century technology will replace 19/20 Century technology (Fossil Fuels) which has dramatically improved the lot of civilization.
The US spends over $20 Billion dollars annually on climate change with negligible results:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
The money is spread everywhere among the Federal agencies and subsidizes university Professors and bundlers as well as well as other faux enterprises like electric cars.
All this wasted expense to put the fossil fuel companies out of business ignoring the fact that they are major contributors to the US treasury and the green energy contributes little to nothing.
Is there any other time in history where the US government went all out to shut down profitable enterprise by going backwards?
For some reason, I keep reading her name as Nuticcelli.
Dana is a he…despite his girlish figure and moniker.
In the current age we are in I wouldn’t be assigning genders to anyone unless they have already professed which one they claim they are.
Martin,
I suspect you are already aware of this, but from the “Oh no you did not! Oh yes I did!” files, we have this gem:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2015/01/new_york_university_bans_the_usage_of_mr_mrs_and_ms.html
In reply to Martin R- one of my pet peeves is the misuse of the term “gender” when the term “sex” should be used. One should assign the terms “male” and “female” based on sex.
“;Gender” is , or was before current media began screwing it up, a purely LANGUAGE term.
Mark Twain wrote a humorous article with the title, “The Awful German Language”. German has more
“gender ” words than English. “Der: is a masculine term
Der Mann- the man but also “Der Ofen” the oven, and “Der Montag”- Monday
“Die” is a feminine term
Die Frau- the woman but also “Die Steuer”- the steering wheel
“Das” is a neutral term
Das Buch- the book, but also “Das Madchen”- the young girl
As Twain pointed out, it can be very difficult to determine the correct Gender word for a noun. Those learning the language have to learn the gender along with the word-
So when some media person misuses the word “Gender” because they think sex is a dirty word,
I think of Mark Twain’s essay, and think of my oven as “he” , my steering wheel as “she” and a young girl as “it”.
“””””…..
Alan McIntire
April 8, 2015 at 6:10 am
In reply to Martin R- one of my pet peeves is the misuse of the term “gender” when the term “sex” should be used. One should assign the terms “male” and “female” based on sex. …..”””””
Well apparently in some parts of the United States; maybe it is at the census bureau, there is a list of some 57 possible genders one may select, and some people think that’s not enough.
And there are some obvious ones that aren’t even listed; like Hermaphrodite for example
I am not denier, to contrary, I do
Science Subversions by ‘Spurious’ Correlations.
I have a correction to make in this post: I don’t think Dana gets paid by anybody.
I don’t think he earns wages from anyone.
But I do think he’s paid.
Quite!
I believe he has a position with Tetra Tech and comments on blogs and writes for the Guardian on his own time.
I’ve always found it interesting how he has managed to be seen as a knowledgeable commentator on climate when he is no more qualified than I am from an educational or profession standpoint.
Nuccitelli is the classic case of a little man made big by lucky chance , but who is at heart still a little man.
The Guardian has effectively given him the freedom to publish any old rubbish , yes has hard as it is to believe with Nuccitelli they managed to make their coverage of AGW even worse .
A rather toxic mix of BS and poor science is his norm , we can only hope his last days are spent in some bar boring the hell out of ever one has he tells them ‘he used to be a a somebody ‘ while his ‘work’ is publicly regards has nothing more than a bad joke.
Nice summation, and right to the heart of the matter.
“The “97% of all climate scientists agree“ meme that Dana bitterly clings to has been thoroughly discredited….”
This 97% consensus is not only oddly precise but has incredible stability for something that should surely change over time, and should be checked and rechecked? It is interesting that if this type of number kept being brought up on a topic such as politics or economics or crime then you would expect some skilled journalist to ask awkward questions which now looks to be the case.
Let’s not the Guardian is chronically in debt, and is only kept afloat by a ‘foundation’.
So I wonder just who is paying for us to hear Dana’s opinion?
Let’s not forget the Guardian is chronically in debt, and is only kept afloat by a ‘foundation’.
So I wonder just who is paying for us to hear Dana’s opinion?
I’ll tell ya’, I’m no superbrain. In fact I’m dumb. I’m rather stupid. In fact I’m as dumb as dumb can be. I walk into closed doors. I trip on my feet when I’m laying down. I say ‘duh’ a lot. I’m a blithering idiot. I’m as dumb as a rock. So I can’t fully understand the orangey and bluey chartey thingy. Are the four temperature records for 1995 through 1998 from a time of lower temperatures before the pause set in? Phew. Did I get that out?
Yes. We didn’t make the orangey and bluey chart thingy. That’s from one of Dana’s Friends. But you did well grasshopper.
You made me laugh, Roy!
+10 🙂
Best wishes from a grasshopper.
No doubt Tom is as dumb they come. But when I mistakenly struggle through an article where I don’t comprehend one word, I scan the comments for a J where I can at least be entertained.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. (German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, 1818)
What I want to know is what happens then? Do the doom-mongers apologize and give the money back? I’m betting No on that one. Accountability for the lead players would be nice too, which is probably another pipedream…
All this shouting simply makes me want to investigate “scientists who disputed the links between smoking and cancer” more thoroughly.
It all started with a guy who disputed, correctly it turns out, the connection between second hand smoke and lung cancer.
Not smoking itself.
Said fellow said “Climates not a-warmin’!”
That was all they needed to spin it into “All skeptics doubt cigarettes are dangerous, too”.
– – – – – – – –
Roy Spencer,
And I am damn well “pro-fossil fuel and anti-scientific consensus” as well; in the same context and for the same reasons.
May I add that Dana, as a self-nominated spokesperson for the so called climate change consensus, is an anti-asset for the consensus.
John
Roy,
You continue to make the claim that the change in trend is due to a longer data set but in fact that is only half the story. The other half of the story is that it is due to changes in the analysis.
When I looked at it several years back (using whatever version of the UAH was available at that time), I found the following:
* Your 1998 paper said that, prior to the update in the analysis that was presented in that paper, the trend for January 1979-April 1997 was -0.076 C/decade. [ http://www.homogenisation.org/files/private/WG1/Bibliography/Applications/Applications%20(C-E)/CHRISTY_etal_1998.pdf The relevant sentence is in the conclusions: “The combination of these changes causes the 18+ year trend of T_2LT to be warmer by + 0.03 C /decade (-0.076 to
-0.046C / decade for January 1979–April 1997).”]
* I found that the trend in the “current version” (at the time I did the analysis, early 2009) for that same period was +0.029 C / decade.
* The trend in the “current version” (at the time I did the analysis, early 2009) for the entire period of data through Dec. 2008 was +0.127 C / decade.
So, to summarize: The best estimate of the trend had changed by +0.203 C/decade. Of that, 0.105 C/decade was due to changes in the analysis and 0.099 C/decade was due to having a longer data set. Or, in other words, the very substantial change in the trend was basically due half to changes in the analysis and half to having a longer data set.
I am not sure how much this may have changed if you repeated this analysis that I did 6 years ago, but my impression is that any updates that you have made since then have had only a small effect on the trends.
I think it would be most straightforward if you would acknowledge the fact that corrections to the analysis have in fact made a substantial difference in the changing trend. [By the way, even your own figure here http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Accum_Trend.png confirms my analysis. It shows that the trend through 1997 in UAH v.5.6 is around +0.03 C per decade, whereas your paper from 1998 said that before the correction to the trend in that paper, the trend for January 1979 – April 1997 was -0.076 C per decade. That works out to a change due to the analysis of ~0.106 C per decade, which is (within the accuracy I can read the trend off your graph) exactly what I said above.]
“…-0.076 to -0.046C / decade for January 1979–April 1997).”
I.e., it went from -0.076C to -0.046C in a decade, or 0.03C/decade. It appears to me that the abbreviated phrasing threw you off. The slash should be read as “in a”, not “per”.
Yes…I agree that this one correction discussed in the 1998 paper just changed things by 0.03 C per decade…but subsequent revisions brought the original -0.076 C per decade up to +0.029 C per decade in the “current” UAH version for a total change of +0.105 C per decade.
No, maybe not. Never mind. I’ll let you and Roy work it out.
What you could do is team up with Mikey Mann, co-author a peer-reviewed paper about the discrepancies you outline here, thereby putting yourself in line for a noble prize…
Despite the rather thorough analysis by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, there is one issue concerning the Rolling Stone scandal that has been totally ignored: the presence on staff (or as contractors) of activists–people with a bias that has become their world view, an outlook which pervades their writing and (insofar as they have any) their thoughts.
Sabrina Rubin Erdely abandoned traditional journalistic standards and consciously or unconsciously forced the facts (or her version of them) to fit her preconceived notions. In her activist world, the fraternity and its members were guilty, and everything else could go hang–checking, following up, persistence, accuracy, open-mindedness, none of these were as important as the anti-fraternity, anti-male, anti-UVa narrative.
The identical end-justifies-the-means thinking can be found among journalists who have not just drunk, but gargled, the AGW Kool-Aid. Activists bring their prejudices to their writing. No activist should serve as a journalist; they have an inherent conflict of interest and are not to be trusted.
Does the same standard apply to James Delingpole ( http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/ ) or does an “activist” have to be an activist for positions that you oppose, not positions that you favor?
Do you have examples where Delingpole has produced articles as egregiously wrong as Sabrina Rubin Erdely?
It seems more reasonable to me to keep the comparison centered on journalists reporting on climate science, like Dana Nuccitelli and James Delingpole. I haven’t been following that Rolling Stone fiasco that carefully, besides which, it is kind of an apples-to-oranges comparison.
You should see the non-“apology” she wrote, apologizing to everyone EXCEPT the people she falsely accused of rape. Her perverse world view is screwed in so tight she can’t discern anything.
My favorite comment on these types of things:
Stupid people believe A. Smart people believe B. Really smart people believe A.
The experiment requires the temperature to be at -40 degrees.
Stupid people would say it doesn’t matter if it’s degrees C or F, do the experiment.
Smart people would say it definitely matters if it’s C or F, they are different scales. You can’t do the experiment.
Really smart people would say it doesn’t matter if it’s -40 degrees C or F, do the experiment.
Hear, Hear! my good man. or Three cheers (for sweet revenge.)
Keep it up.
To my mind, it would seem that both of the satellite temperature records have to be more reliable than land based thermometers. In that with the satellites there is only one measuring instrument taking the pulse of the entire globe, one thermometer in essence. Even if there was a slight bias in the system one way or another, the overall picture that is produced will show the exact temperature pattern of the Earth. This can be seen when comparing the RSS and UAH. The trend line between the 2 sets shows the same pattern despite the slight difference in the end result. Whereas GISS shows a very different temp profile over the same time period. Most of that due to the many adjustments made at GISS. If I was seeing the 3 temp sets together for the first time, then my first question would be why is the pattern in GISS so different from the other two sets.
Answer: Because science! Filthy hater!
Or words to that effect.
🙂
Dana is: consistently inaccurate; unskillful; untrained; minion minded; and lacks circumspectness. Perfect fit for a Guardian environment writer.
John
Why should skeptical scientists be used as clickbait by the Guardian/
The Red Queen asks, “Mirror, Mirror on the wall, why is Dana writing at the Guardian at all?”
The Mirror on the Wall answers, “Wormtongue recommended him.”
John
Joel…james delingpole speaks the truth. Big differance would t you agree?
Like I thought: You have no objective standard, just your subjective opinion of what the truth is (an opinion that happens to be in disagreement with most of the scientists in the field).
I have the impression that Delingpole is a commentator rather than a straight-up journalist. I expect to see his output on the Op-Ed pages, and as he is something of an advocate I would apply a little more skepticism when considering his writing. And let us keep in mind, there’s a big difference between being simply wrong, and being deceptive. If Delingpole offers a fact or graph, suitably attributed, to support his position, and fails to offer contrary evidence, I’m not offended by his lack of even-handedness. It’s what you expect from someone with a partisan view. I would not excuse his failure to vet the information he presents, or worse, the fabrication of evidence.
D.J. – Well, I am no expert on either Delingpole or Nuccitelli, but my impressions from a brief web search is that they both play similar roles at their respective newspapers, so it seems reasonable to me to compare them.
And just to be clear, this is the part of jorgekafkazar’s post that I was originally responding to:
(I was not really particularly interested in arguing about the merits of Erdely’s journalism, as it is not a person or story I have followed very closely and is unrelated to the climate issue, other than jorgekafkazar’s attempt to make an analogy.)
Your original reply was to jorgekafkazar’s post where he discussed Erdely’s shortcomings as a journalist. You brought up Delingpole in your response (and did not include Nuccitelli), and I think the point to be made is that they are in fact the same sort of creature, but she’s lying about it. So to address your point directly, no, they don’t get judged by the same standard as they are on the surface in two different classes with regard to communication via the written word.
On to your impressions re Delingpole and Nuccitelli, yes, I would agree they should be weighed with the same scale.
Comparison to Marshall & Warren
Actually, I would compare you to Thomas More ( I haven’t figured one out for Dr. Christy yet.) You persist in speaking truth to the king (Hussein) who has mobilized all of the government forces at his disposal to sell Gaia worship to the American public, while demanding absolute adherence to the alarmist creed. I hope you don’t lose your head over this.
Joel, if you can’t tell the difference between a liar like Dana and a true scientist like Dr.Roy Spencer, no amount of education will help you. Your comment a disgrace to educated people.
Dana’s chart was accurate for what it showed: It showed how the trend claimed by the UAH group has evolved over time. It did not separate out what part of that is due to the longer time series and what part is due to changes in the analysis.
Roy’s graph was accurate for what it showed: It showed that the trends in a bunch of different data sets have evolved upward over time as the length of the time series has increased. However, it did not show the fact that the actual claimed trend by UAH has changed by about double this, because the UAH analysis has also changed over time. (I.e., it just showed how the trend changed using v5.6 of the analysis.) In this sense, it really avoided the fundamental issue and that fact seems to have been lost of much of the readership here.
So, neither Dana nor Roy gave you the complete picture. I am the only one who has given a complete picture by explicitly determining what part of the total difference in the claimed trend is due to the longer time series and what part is due to changes in the analysis. If that makes my comments “a disgrace to educated people” in your mind, I think that says more about you than about Roy, Dana, or myself.
So Joel, I presume that you must have a peer reviewed paper in which you alone have shown the errors in the Spencer Christy paper.
After all, that would be the normal procedure for refuting what you believe to be erroneous information. And you have made quite a point in bringing your evaluation of their mistakes to our attention.
So where can we read your paper ??
Or are you just piggy backing on top of their often cited work ??