Part 1: NASA’s Gavin Schmidt explains how “Pearce includes a statement about me that is patently untrue.”
Many people said to be jumping the shark — “the point in a television program’s history where the plot spins off into absurd storylines” — were not serious to begin with. Fred Pearce was, however, having written a climate book as far back as 1989, Turning Up the Heat: Our perilous future in the global greenhouse.
Last year, however, RealClimate eviscerated Pearce’s 12-part series about the stolen CRU emails, identifying myriad “errors and misrepresentations.” Now Pearce has thoroughly misrepresented the views of one RealClimate writter, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, and repeated a variety of anti-science myths, in a truly dreadful piece in New Scientist.
The entire premise of the piece, “Climate sceptics and scientists attempt peace deal,” is beyond absurd. It’s about this fossil-fuel funded confab in Portugal between the post-normal confusionists (led by Judith Curry) and the extreme disinformers, including … wait for it … Steven Goddard, a guy so extreme that Anthony Watts gave him the early gold watch at WattsUpWithThat (see Fastest disinformer retraction: Watts says Goddard’s “Arctic ice increasing by 50000 km2 per year” post is “an example of what not to do when graphing trends”). Also attending were Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick and Steve Mosher.
Serious climate scientists would not knowingly attended a meeting with Goddard, let alone many of the others. These folks aren’t interested in a serious debate, let alone a ‘peace deal’. They just desperately want the credibility of the mainstream media so they can continue their campaign of anti-science disinformation and anti-scientist smears.
And that brings us to the “made-up quote” that blatantly misrepresents Schmidt — whom Pearce did not even interview for this piece. This quote should be retracted as soon as possible (along with most of the rest of the piece):
But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss.
Across the spectrum, participants were mostly united in disagreeing with Schmidt. Climate science, they said, is much less certain than the IPCC mainstreamers say, and peace can be found only if all accept what they dubbed “the uncertainty monster”.
So much misinformation packed into so little space.
Schmidt sets the record straight in an email to New Scientist (and me and many others):
In the piece entitled “Climate sceptics and scientists attempt peace deal,” Fred Pearce includes a statement about me that is patently untrue.
“But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss.”
This is completely made up. My decision not to accept the invitation to this meeting was based entirely on the organiser’s initial diagnosis of the cause of the ‘conflict’ in the climate change debate. I quote from their introductory letter:
“At this stage we are planning to have a workshop where the main scientific issues can be discussed, so that some clarity on points of agreement and disagreement might be reached. We would try to stay off the policy issues, and will also exclude personal arguments.
“The issues we have in mind are Medieval Warm Period, ice, climate sensitivity, and temperature data. We would hope to have smaller groups discussing these in some detail, hopefully with scientists who are very familiar with the technical issues to lead the discussion.”
Since, in my opinion, the causes of conflict in the climate change debate relate almost entirely to politics and not the MWP, climate sensitivity or ‘ice’, dismissing this from any discussion did not seem likely to be to help foster any reconciliation.
At no point did I declare that the ‘science was settled’ and that there was nothing to discuss. Indeed, I am on record as saying the exact opposite:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/
Pearce might well note that even I am included in the “spectrum” that “disagree[s] with Schmidt”!
Fred Pearce did not interview me for this piece. I should like to request that in future, if my views are of interest, that he (or anyone else) should actually ask me directly. I am not hard to contact.
Yours respectfully,
Gavin Schmidt
PS. I am not a ‘leader of mainstream climate science’ either.
Pearce and New Scientist should quickly issue a retraction and apology for this misrepresentation. Failing to do so could only be seen as an effort to intentionally smear a leading NASA scientist. It would be a big blow to the credibility of New Scientist.
It is it is a canard of Curry-esque proportions to assert that scientists have not clearly explained the nature and extent of these uncertainties (see “Hockey Stick fight at the RC Corral” and “Judith Curry abandons science“). As Schmidt himself has written:
But one of the strongest methods to deflect attention away from what the science has actually concluded is to find ways to exaggerate thea mount of uncertainty. Since there is always uncertainty in science — scientists work at the boundary between known and unknown — any strongly supported result can be politically “countered” by reference to uncertainty in an assumption, a piece of data, or an experimental procedure regardless of how well characterized that uncertainty is or how robust the original result. This tactic implicitly constructs the logical fallacy of suggesting that because we do not know everything, we therefore know nothing.
The whole conference was absurd. One reporter (not Pearce) actually tried to convince me that the conference was legitimate because Peter Webster attended. Yes, Webster was certainly the most serious scientists to attend the conference — but he is Curry’s husband! Seriously.
Eli Rabett explains who “fronted the money for the Great Lisboa Reconciliation Bunfest” here. I know that you will be shocked to learn it was directly connected to a large fossil fuel company.
SheWonk has a video too silly for me to embed, but she explains:
This post is in honour of Judith Curry being declared “Climate Scientist of the Year” at the Post-Normal Conference in Lisbon…. Tallbloke gave her a commemorative t-shirt with a Josh cartoon on it “” the cartoon depicts a trash can labelled “Climate Science”. Curry quips “My reaction to climate change”. Say no more”¦
Pearce’s article is as absurd as the conference.
Pearce 1.0 could have written a book debunking the nonsense that Pearce 2.0 publishes in this article without any response from a serious climate scientist or without any evidence that he reads the scientific literature in the least bit anymore. Consider this paragraph:
The biggest, most totemic, issue remains the IPCC’s adoption of the “hockey stick” narrative, which holds that 20th-century warming is unique over the past millennium. Most in Lisbon saw this as a scandalous example of IPCC editors taking sides in an unresolved debate, and of how “scientific findings were judged according to their political utility”.
Pause to clean up gray matter and reattach those head vises.
Pearce never points out that the Hockey Stick was affirmed in a major review by the uber-prestigious National Academy of Scientists (in media-speak, the highest scientific “court” in the land) “” see NAS Report and here. The news story in the journal Nature (subs. req’d) on the NAS panel was headlined: “Academy affirms hockey-stick graph“!
Pearce seems completely unaware that the Hockey Stick has been replicated and strengthened by numerous independent studies since then:
- Temperatures of North Atlantic “are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming” “” Science (1/11)
- Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds. (9/09)
- Unprecedented warming in Lake Tanganyika and its impact on humanity (5/10)
- GRL (9/10): “We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years.”
- JGR (9/1) “The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last 1600 years.”
Any conference where most of the participants are obsessed with the Hockey Stick, consider it “totemic,” and think its underlying science is unresolved simply isn’t a serious scientific meeting. Similarly, no serious journalist should simply publish two sentences questioning the underlying science without any quote from a real climate scientist or citation to the NAS and the multiple, confirming studies.
Pearce’s byline for the piece reads, “Fred Pearce, consultant.” Wikipedia states Pearce “is currently the environment consultant of New Scientist magazine.” I take it what that means is he is acting as some sort of expert whose work doesn’t actually have to be fact-checked. If so, the magazine has picked a very poor choice of expert, since he hasn’t done his basic homework on the science and hasn’t bothered to even interview the people he is grossly misrepresenting.
Pearce and the magazine should retract the piece and apologize to Schmidt.
Feel free to debunk other parts of the piece in the comments. I will be doing another post.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Joe:
Gavin’s made it clear elsewhere (Rabbett Run, I think?) that he was unaware of who else had been invited. His decision not to attend was entirely based on the invitation letter (which his e-mail to New Scientist makes clear).
Just to avoid confusion …
Of course, if he were aware that Goddard, Mosher, Tallbloke, etc were attending, I’d *hope* that this knowledge would make him even less likely to attend! :)
Time let to let some litigation minded lawyers off the leash.
A weird bit of reporting for a once good science jurno…Actually it’s really a blog but that doesn’t excuse the way Pearce has frames things like the’ totemic’ para. Why he even covered the meeting is a mystery except perhaps the amenable conference location. Surprised the NS pay’s him write this stuff.
If it wasn´t tragic it would be funny. Suggest everyone decamps to Judy´s blog and call them out.
Sorry to sound like `High Noon´ but enough is enough.
Indeed, and Judith Curry was there.
Pearce’s book “With Speed and Violence…Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points” is one of the best I have ever read on the topic of climate change, and I’ve read most of them. It’s a terrifying assessment – perhaps he scared himself – otherwise, his writings attacking science and scientists this past year make no sense whatsoever.
All over the world the weather has been extra weird of late with ordinary weird weather being made so much more extreme as a result of us warming the earth. I think weird weather must have cooked the brains of Pearce and the editors at New Scientist.
Who in New Scientist made the decision to publish an article on the wimpy denialist workshop at Lisbon, let alone one that writes about it as if it were of any size or note? It was a few sessions led by deniers and denier chum speakers at a small one-day workshop. Is the business that paid for the workshop and attendees a major advertiser? I viewed the Lisbon session as another nail in the coffin (with so many nails in this coffin already) for Curry’s credibility, and in passing wondered who was paying for her and others to take time off work to attend, but no more than that.
Since Pearce once again had to make up stuff to give his article any ‘oomph’, surely no reputable magazine or newspaper will publish any article by Pearce ever again. A prominently placed letter of retraction would be good though.
It’s good to keep up with all the libel that’s being printed these days and let people know who is publishing and writing this junk. Thanks, Joe.
And #4 Sue Jones, IMO Curry’s blog only attracts deniers and any stray normal visitor is quickly pounced upon and trashed, either by Curry or by her denier chums. I recommend anyone who wants to maintain their credibility avoid it. In any case, it might give newcomers to her blog the wrong impression that it’s a serious science blog. It’s not. A read of any article in her blog shows that it’s innuendo and bad ‘philosophy’, designed to foster doubt among the doubters. (As well as that, visitors run the risk of their brains exploding if they read the junk that’s posted there.)
WE:
I had the same thought when I heard of this. “With Speed…” is indeed an excellent book, one I’ve recommended many times, and I wondered if Pearce is now in the grip of a defense mechanism.
How utterly sad for him and destructive for everyone else…
If you want to see the damage done by this made up comment attributed to Gavin Schmidt, have a look through the comments after Fred Pearce’s article in New Scientist. The ‘quote’ from Gavin features heavily…
Here is a choice one:
—
‘Re: … “Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss”
Any scientist who says something like this has lost any right to call himself a scientist. It has to be one of the worst examples of arrogance and narrow-mindedness I can think of. I’m sure the greats of science (eg Feynman, Watson etc) would be turning in their graves to hear such an unscientific viewpoint.’
—
Pearce has really caused harm to Schmidt’s personal reputation in an internationally published magazine (and on the web). This is very, very wrong.
Unfortunately Schmidt has no legal recoure, but I hope he can force a front page apology from New Scientist for the wrong that has been done. It would be good if the Internet version of the article is prefaced by a prominent apologia so anybody reading it knows the wrong that has been done.
This goes to show how strong “denial” is in humans.
Pearce knows intellectually what the science says and what the threats are…and yet he has flipped to denier mode starting with ClimateHack. Denial isn’t about reality…it is about maintaining a psychological continuity with your inner values and storyline.
Perhaps being so publicly wrong about ClimateHack has built up shame that requires a narrative where those who called him out publicly are themselves forced to suffer the same riddicule? Who knows? But clearly he has decided to align himself with the “persecuted fringe”.
I think Curry’s trajectory is psychologically similar.
Trying to fighting the laws of physics and chemistry to retain their dignity isn’t going to end well for any of these folks.
Sad indeed.
I agree with Wit’s End. Pearce’s book With Speed and Violence is a good book. Last year, I read some of Pearce’s shoddy reporting on the CRU emails and I was left speculating that maybe the existential g-forces of the truth of the coming climate catastrophe got to him and so he was turning on the messenger’s to avoid having to deal with the terrifying truth.
Gavin Schmidt talks about the politics of climate change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krXF9Icfa6k
“Pearce and the magazine should retract the piece and apologize to Schmidt.
I would argue that they should go further than that….
I would also argue that they owe Schmidt a guest editorial to present some semblance of balance.
This is all a very sad, but morbidly fascinating, psychological experiment that we are witness to.
Misrepresenting Gavin Schmidt was the most egregious error in the piece (well it was fabrication really), can anyone identify the other blatant errors?
No credible published climate scientist is interested in wasting his time surrounded by that Rogues Gallery- McIntyre, McKittrick, Curry, Goddard et al. Why weren’t Lord Monckton and Delingpole invited?
As for parsing the motives of Pearce and Curry, among others- the psychological explanations are twisted, and go down a rabbit hole that can make the digger a little nutty, too. I prefer to believe that Curry, Pearce, McIntyre, McKittrick and the rest are motivated by the same thing that is likely to doom us all- simple greed. Does anyone believe that a man like Steve McIntyre just “wants to get the science right”? Puleez.
Anyone who had ever read RC and Gavin’s comments would know that he would never say the science is settled.
In fact he’s quite clear that anything other than actual observations is modelling and extapoplation, with backcasting to firm up the calculations.
He’s also quite clear that we really don’t want to do the “observation” route in this case. Although the denialists seem to think this is a good idea.
Perhaps we should change the Denialists name to “Risk Takers” or “Self Flaggelants” or “Climate Vandals”.
Additionally Gavin would never say the science is “settled” because every iteration of knowledge gained shows that the situation is worse, happening faster and likely to have a bigger impact on humanity. Why would he say that the sicence is settled when every addition to that very “unsettled” science makes the situation significantly worse.
What he does say is that the fundamentals are settled and have been for more than a century. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere warms the climate. Period. The devil is in the details. What is not settled is how much, how long, how bad, etc.
I haven’t read an article by anyone, physicist, chemist or any other field who denys that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming of the climate. So I’d guess we CAN call that settled.
The very idea that science can be done using “peace talks”… what? You mean science should no longer be done by fact-finding, but instead should be done by horse-trading? How does that even work? I’m willing to sacrifice one factoid in return for another factoid?
– frank
I thought Judith Curry was an expert on Iraq’s WMD. How did she get involved in the climate change issue?
finally someone points out the “reconciliation” meeting for what it is, at least from the denialist point of view: just an attempt to get into the media via a feign of reasonableness even as they continue spouting their venomous ignorance (I would say see goddards blog for an example, but actually don’t)
“The meeting was the brainchild of University of Oxford science philosopher Jerry Ravetz, an 81-year-old Greenpeace member who fears Al Gore may have done as much damage to environmentalism as Joseph Stalin did to socialism. Post-Climategate, he found climate science characterised by “a poisoned atmosphere” in which “each side accuses the other of being corrupt”. Mainstream researchers were labelled “ideologues on the gravy train”, while sceptics were denigrated as “prostitutes and cranks”.”
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/02/climate-sceptics-scientists-at.html
I stopped reading there …
I think Pearce has the wrong people he writing about. Seriously wtf Ravetz? Everybody can become a greenpeace member and talk bs. And everybody can then use member statements to taint a movement bad. And that’s what Pearce is doing here.
There is no OTHER SIDE Mr Pearce, there is only Science. And the people he writes about are anti-science because they get paid by Koch etc to attack the science. All these people should be locked up behind bars for conspiracy. They are a national security threat, when spreading doubt and misinformation, ab9out the greatest threat in human history!
Ravetz and his conga-line of liars and dupes can simply take a hike.Seriously,they have nothing to say about climate science. Nothing at all. I am sick of these people dealing themselves into this field as if they have some entitlement granted by simply loving the sound of their own voices.
The idea that these well-poisoners can offer ‘ways forward’ is a stupid and boring joke. Enough.
“Those making the trip included heroes of the sceptics such as statistician Steve McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick, plus writers and bloggers such as Steve Mosher, the man who broke the Climategate story, and “heretical” scientists such as Georgia Tech’s Judy Curry and Peter Webster.”
Seriously, Mr Pearce doing one thing and one thing only when writing like this, he gives sceptics credibility. These guys … made up stories from some email text. That Pearce presents this here as equal sides is highly manipulative and reason to kick Pearce from the NS and any other climate reporting.
JonS.
“Unfortunately Schmidt has no legal recoure…”
I’m not so sure.
Pearse has inflicted quite severe damage to Gavin Schmidt’s reputation, and has done so either through sheer professional incompetence or through deliberate intent to misrepresent. Either action I think would be quite litigiously actionable.
I’m curious to know why you believe that there is no legal recourse.
Pearce , in my opinion, had ‘jumped the shark’ with the disgraceful, disingenuous and seemingly deliberately obfuscatory series mentioned by the author published in ‘The Guardian’ last year. Why he has gone over to the denialists is for him to confess but I have my own suspicions. He will now go down that familiar path of the erstwhile apostate convert to Rightwing groupthink, and grow ever more raucous and extreme. But I was not surprised because ‘The Guardian’ is just another Rightwing rag, if, I believe, a snide, dissmbling and sneaky one. And New Scientist has always had a not so hidden ideological agenda, perhaps best personified by its alumnus and failed bankster, Matt Ridley.
This is a perfect microcosm of the whole ‘debate’. If you know anyone who doesn’t understand the way these discussions work send them to see Pearce’s piece and get them to read through the comments. If they are not totally blind they will understand where the balance lies.
The only way I can explain the recent antics of Fred Pearce is by considering that he has to write about something controversial to keep his bread buttered. Back then it suited him to broadcast the knowledge that humans were altering the climate in a dangerous way. Now that events are beginning to support the forecasts of scientific studies he has to change tack to remain controversial and thus continue having much to write about.
Time that organs like The Guardian and The New Scientist relegated Pearce to the margins like Delingpole, Phillips, Booker etc. Were there not recent changes in editorial management at The New Scientist, this could, in part, explain its fall in standards perhaps?
Memo to Pearce:
on hockey sticks have a read of John Cook’s excellent article found in his well designed ‘The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism:
The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
and read page 8 ‘Hockey stick or hockey league?’ of the downloaded guided. Whilst you are there Fred, bounce a link on to Curry as she seems to have forgotten how multifaceted the evidence for man induced climate havoc is. I trust that you and Curry will be able to understand that guide.
As for myself, back to immersion in David Archer and Ray Pierrehumbert ‘The Warming Papers’.
Pearce is the reason I dropped my subscription to the New Scientist, well before this particular issue arose. I know I’m not the only one. I’d find myself reading an article, think ‘Gee, this is genuinely annoying’, and then look at the byline…
I’d go along with Maple Leaf’s suggestion above. Gavin deserves space for a guest editorial in NS in order to set the record straight. This is an appalling distortion.
Cheers – John
Hi Joe, I guess you did not miss this piece in Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6017/554.abstract
Alex
[JR: On the list.]
Pearce’s reversal to idiot writer since his excellent “With Speed and Violence” just shows what “everything has a price” culture can do to the best of us. Maybe we should have a memorial service for the passing of the old Fred Pearce. All these people who should know better are just disgusting.
Everything you need to know about Fred Pearce’s credibility:
http://www.wcc3.org/wcc3media/mp3/WCC3_PS3_ClimatePredictionScience.mp3
From about 20% of the way into that file, Mojib Latif has a great talk on decadal influences on global trends, which he gave on Sept 1st 2009. Listen to it while observing his slide presentation here: http://www.wcc3.org/wcc3docs/pdf/PS3_latif.pdf (about 15 minutes or so, well worth it).
3 days later, Pearce comes up with this, based on the talk you’ve just heard: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html
And later shown on the New Scientist website as follows: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327254.000-world-will-cool-for-the-next-decade.html
At best, Pearce is a seriously inept journalist, who should be back practicing his skills at his local town weekly times. At worst, for the last few years he has consistently shown a willingness to actively distort the work of others, mislead his readership, and simply make stuff up. This latest example is the tip of the iceberg.
That New Scientist sees fit to continue his employment is indicative of what that magazine now represents.
Hi Joe,
and if you missed this PNAS article (Carnicer et al., dec 2010), you might add it to the analysis of interaction on forests and climate change drought:
“Widespread crown condition decline, food web disruption, and amplified tree mortality with increased climate change-type drought”
http://rug.academia.edu/JofreCarnicer/Papers/368558/Widespread_crown_condition_decline_food_web_disruption_and_amplified_tree_mortality_with_increased_climate-change-type_drought
Forest were our friends, now they are becoming our enemies…
Alex
Mulga Mumblebrain says:
But I was not surprised because ‘The Guardian’ is just another Rightwing rag
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Just gave Joe and editorial…..
Might have picked a better day for that comment ;-)
Link to Guardian piece:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/feb/04/extreme-weather-global-food-crisis
Cheers – John
Re. Dorlomin
Thanks (I think). That’s my night down the pan ;) I guess the Teahadists should be coming out around about now.
@J Bowers & Dorlomin,
You’ll be on your own, guys – it’s the England-Wales 6 Nations game tonight! ;)
Cheers – John
DanR @31,
Thanks for bringing this up. I made an official complaint to NewScientist about that (as did others), together with several pages of evidence and a transcript of the relevant part of Latif’s talk, and the scientific literature.
NewScientist assured me that they were interested in getting the facts right, but refused to acknowledge that Pearce had erred or make any corrections (there were a few issues).
Joe, I have the email correspondence with them on file if you want to see.
Anyhow, the Latif fiasco (fall of 2009) was, to my knowledge, the first sign of trouble with Pearce.
It is now Friday evening in the UK, they have known about this fro about 24-hours now, and had the entire work day Friday to address this and they have done nothing whatsoever. Another myth/lie on the internet is thus born. Absolutely disgraceful.
So much for this claim made by NewScientist:
“New Scientist goes behind the news to provide users with a commercial and business viewpoint. The New Scientist brand is a trusted source of information for key business decision-makers.”
I posted this at NS:
“This article (and the article by Pearce on Dr. Mojib Latif a while ago), casts serious doubt on that claim. NewScientist has now grossly misrepresented (and damaged the reputation of) at least two prominent climate scientists thanks to Fred Pearce.
Sadly, after these two incidents NewScientist can no longer be considered a trustworthy or accurate source of information on climate science.”
NewScientist and its editorial board needs to take some drastic steps to repair its tarnished reputation, and to regain the trust of scientists (especially climate scientists).”
And when are the deniers going to accept the “Uncertainty cuts both ways” monster?
It it just as likely to be WORSE than predicted as better, and the data keeps piling up in favor of worse.
Excellent point Chad @39, and something else that Pearce ignored.
Joe, a richly ironic but I think not widely known bit of information is that Pearce was responsible for the original 2350=>2035 error (IIRC in an NS article), not that that’s any excuse for those who passed it along later (especially as the 2350 number was just a number plucked from the air to begin with).
I think the blame for the Grauniad’s horrible “Climategate” coverage needs to go primarily to the science editor, then to George Monbiot (who at least had the grace to retract eventually) and only then to Pearce.
Now Pearce, Tattersall and the organizing committee of the workshop (including Curry) owe Schmidt a grovelling apology.
Schmidt never said that the science is settled or that there was nothing to discuss. That was Tattersall’s tainted interpretation of Schmidt’s email (URL below) which Pearce then parroted without having the professionalism or integrity or decency to check with Schmidt first.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/gavin-schmidt-response-to-lisbon-invitation/
Tallbloke left off the last bit of Gavin’s e-mail (which Gavin graciously suggests Tallbloke may not have seen):
“You would be much better off trying to find common ground on policy ideas via co-benefits (on air pollution, energy security, public health water resources etc), than trying to get involved in irrelevant scientific ‘controversies’.”
And that probably is the only area in the so-called lukewarmer portion of the skeptic camp might reconcile with climate scientists and those who accept science.
Even Keith Kloor’s calling out Tallbloke and Fred Pearce on this smear job on Gavin … that tells ya something.
Yes, #33 dolormin, but they allowed a troll to call him the ‘poor man’s Al Gore’!
43. “Yes, #33 dolormin, but they allowed a troll to call him the ‘poor man’s Al Gore’!”
Responded to soon afterwards, and it was a pleasure to point to Joe’s PhD in physics along with his other achievements. Linking to here at CIF always gets the denialati in a spin, who seem to have a near pathological hatred for CP and get very upset….. I link to here a lot.
Mulga Mumblebrain says:
February 4, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Yes, #33 dolormin, but they allowed a troll to call him the ‘poor man’s Al Gore’!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Its the climate debate mate. Its sleeves up and steam in! People in this one dont stand around going “I can see your point but feel, in spite of your excellent accademic record, you have slightly over egged the pudding old bean.”
Woot I am of off moderation again on the Guardian! ‘Steam in’ but not necessarily quite like me. I can be a touch errr spikey.
Mapleleaf – Pearce’s misrepresentation of Latif’s talk was the first exposure I had had to his writing. Not a great start, I’ve been highly skeptical of his material ever since.
Steve Bloom at 41 makes a good point too – Pearce’s role in the 2035/2350 issue was far from minor. I did my best to trace that mistake back to it’s origins here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/a_beat_up_of_himalayan_proport.php#comment-2214376
I should add that I thought the 2035/2350 mistake occurred one step BEFORE Pearce got to it, but repeated by him without checking, and no attempt to correct it later. Remarkably, the mistake still stands as is on the New Scientist website. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221893.000-flooded-out.html
Sorry, slightly off topic, but the original use of the 2350 date occurs in this 1996 report, page 66 (for some reason I didn’t link to it in my linked-to comment above.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001065/106523e.pdf
page 66.
Aaron Lewis @ #2: “Time let to let some litigation minded lawyers off the leash.”
Well, Aaron, deSmogBlog reports that UVic’s Andrew Weaver is suing Tim Ball for defamation. Weaver has restrained himself with the trash talk from Ball for years, and it’s good to see him taking action. What’s interesting is that the two personalities couldn’t be more different. Weaver is a true gentleman and is unfailingly patient and selfless in educating students and the public. Ball made some truly egregious comments.
Yes, he has, and he’s seeking an injunction (the process and terminology is different in Canada, but one paragraph of the suit is clearly asking for whatever the equivalent to an injunction is up there).
In the US, asking for an injunction is pretty much standard procedure, I don’t know if it is up there. But it will be interesting to if Ball’s told to cease and desist until the court passes judgement on the suit. In the US, granting an injunction is a signal that the judge considers the plaintiff’s case to be very strong …
Denier tallbloke admits that denierism is religious in nature.
Here is a quote from his website (in comments):
pon·tif·i·cate intr.v. (-kt) pon·tif·i·cat·ed, pon·tif·i·cat·ing, pon·tif·i·cates
1. To express opinions or judgments in a dogmatic way.
2. To administer the office of a pontiff.
Good to see that they at least admit something which is true.
Thanks Dan R @#31,
So, this is a talk that strikes out with -
while displaying a slide that clearly shows a predicted exponential increase in temperate to the end of the century plotted concurrently with the fluctuations of the actual temperature record of the 20th century and a projection of (hypothetical) similar fluctuations – specifically to illustrate the point that it is still possible that variability may present us with shorter-term declines in the context of longer term increase.
Latif runs through several more examples of the problem of decadal variability in relation to various climate models, points out areas where he thinks there’s a good chance real improvements could be made, and ends with -
This then becomes;
I’m sure we’re all only-too-familiar with this kind of ‘interpretation’!
dorlomin says: “Woot I am of off moderation again on the Guardian! ‘Steam in’ but not necessarily quite like me. I can be a touch errr spikey.”
I wondered you’d been. I was put on the naughty step myself the other week after a spate of reports were made – I wonder how that happened, and by whom? ;)