‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017

global warming protest
Annette Bernhardt/Flickr

“Global warming” is a myth — so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.

In other words, the so-called “Consensus” on global warming is a massive lie. And Donald Trump was quite right to quit the Paris agreement which pretended that the massive lie was true.

By “global warming” these papers don’t, of course, mean the mild warming of around 0.8 degrees Celsius that the planet has experienced since the middle of the 19th century as the world crawled out of the Little Ice Age. Pretty much everyone, alarmists and skeptics alike, is agreed on that.

Rather, they mean “global warming” in the sense that is most commonly used today by grant-troughing scientists, and huxter politicians, and scaremongering green activists, and brainwashed mainstream media (MSM) environmental correspondents. “Global warming” as in the scary, historically unprecedented, primarily man-made phenomenon which we must address urgently before the icecaps melt and the Pacific islands disappear beneath the waves and all the baby polar bears drown.

What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.

That is, all these different experts from around the world — China, Russia, Canada, the U.S., Italy, etc. — have been looking closely at different aspects of the global warming puzzle in various regions and on different timescales and come to the conclusion in irreproachable, peer-reviewed scientific ways that there is no evidence to support the global warming scare story.

Late 20th century and early 21st century global warming, they show, is neither dramatic, nor unusual, nor scary.

Here, as collated by Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone, are just some of the charts to prove it.

Büntgen et al, below, shows that temperatures in the northern hemisphere were warmer in the early 1400s than they are today

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Sir Paul Nurse – saviour of the universe! | James Delingpole

March 1, 2012

As regular readers will no doubt be aware, Sir Paul Nurse is easily my favourite Nobel-prizewinner after Yasser Arafat, Al Gore and Barack Obama. All right, so he got his award for genetics rather than (as the others did) services to world peace. But in no wise does this diminish my respect for the many wondrous things he has achieved, not just in medical science, but also in the fields of political activism, self-promotion and tendentious TV documentary making.

Which, of course, is why I have been so concerned these last few months for the state of Nurse’s reputation. First, of course, there was that string of boo-boos he made in his BBC Horizon documentary, Science Under Attack,  in which he set out to make fools of people he branded “deniers” only to end up proving himself significantly more ignorant of the complexities of climate science than the “deniers” were. Then came Andrew Montford’s devastating report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation on how Nurse (and his two predecessors Lord Rees and Lord May) had destroyed the integrity of the once-great Royal Society by transforming it from a scrupulously neutral scientific body into a “policy-driven quango.” To add insult to injury, poor Nurse was dismissed thus in an introductory essay by Professor Richard Lindzen:

The presidents involved with this issue (May, Rees and Nurse) are all profoundly ignorant of climate science. Their alleged authority stems from their positions in the RS rather than from scientific expertise. This is evident in a variety of ways.

That’s why I was so delighted to learn that Nurse had been given the chance to rescue his tattered credibility by giving this year’s Dimbleby lecture. And sure enough he managed to do so, with all the deftness of Paul Daniels doing a card trick (in his pre-bandsaw days), nay with the dazzling legerdemain of a balloon dancer hiding her rude bits at Madame Jo-Jos.

Here’s how he did it. (H/T Neil Craig who has also noticed at this blog, most disrespectfully titled Sir Paul Nurse slithers) He cunningly pretended that instead of being one of those political activist scientists who had aggressively pushed the threadbare theory of man-made global warming onto an unsuspecting, gullible audience who thought men with Nobel-prizes and white lab coats could be trusted, he had in fact been a scrupulously neutral party all along.

The key passage is this one:

The majority of expert climate scientists have reached the consensus view that human activity has resulted in global warming, although there is debate about how much the temperature will rise in the future. Others argue that warming is not taking place at all or that it will happen in a catastrophic way, but they have failed to persuade the majority of climate experts, who have judged the scientific arguments made to support these more extreme views as being too weak to be convincing.

Can you see what he’s doing there? Blink and you’ll miss it. So let me explain. Nurse is ingeniously mischaracterising the debate on AGW as being one between two extreme parties: on the one hand are these imaginary people (anyone know any? I certainly don’t) who argue that “warming is not taking place at all” and on the other are these ones who believe that this anthropogenic warming will happen “in a catastrophic way.” And somewhere in the middle, apparently, is balanced, reasonable Nurse.

Well, I hesitate to accuse a man whose integrity I admire so greatly of lying, but, isn’t he being a little – ahem – economical with the actualite here?

I mean if, as Nurse is now suggesting, the scientific mainstream understanding of global warming is that it’s happening but that it’s open to debate how significant it is then doesn’t this completely contradict pretty much everything he, the Royal Society, and its two previous presidents Lords Rees and May have been doing this last decade or more to stoke up the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare for all they’re worth?

After all if the “science” of AGW were still, so to speak, “unsettled” then clearly it would be madness, not to say despicably irresponsible, of organisations like the Royal Society to urge policy prescriptions in order to deal with a problem which may actually not even exist.

It would be nice to think that having narrowly escaped being written off by future historians as yet another of those junk science eco-loons who helped foment what I describe in my book Watermelons as “the biggest and most expensive outbreak of mass hysteria in history”, Nurse will now stick to what he knows best: proper, falsifiable, empirical science – as opposed to post normal science and left-leaning activism.

But this paragraph of his speech persuades me that he may not have learned the error of his ways just yet:

Today the world faces major problems. Some uppermost in my mind are food security, climate change, global health and making economies sustainable, all of which need science. It is critical for our democracy to have mature discussions about these issues.

“Making economies sustainable”, eh? As Homer Simpson might have said: “Nobel-Prize-winning geneticists: is there ANYTHING they can’t do?”

Related posts:

  1. Sir Paul Nurse’s big boo boo
  2. Meet The Sceptics: another BBC stitch-up
  3. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  4. I thought I was having a Nobel laureate for tea. Instead, the BBC had me for lunch

4 thoughts on “Sir Paul Nurse – saviour of the universe!”

  1. Nige Cook says:1st March 2012 at 10:59 pmHubris. Politics is what you get when you professionalize anything, and it’s fatal to nascent science.You get a breed of greasy-pole climbers awarding each out prizes paid for by blood money (Crimean War dynamite).You get the BBC always treating these famous bigwig’s patronising polemics like the word of God.

    Hubris.

  2. Nige Cook says:3rd March 2012 at 8:44 amJames, please at some stage write a post about the latest UAH global lower troposphere mean temperature data point for February 2012, it closely matches January’s and it really seems to indicate a COOLING setting in: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2012-0-12-deg-c/Also please note that all this satellite microwave mean tropospheric data is biased in favour of EXAGGERATING temperature rises, because it includes heating at the tops of clouds, which plays NO PART in ice cap melting, sea level rises, etc. Hot air expands and rises, cool air contracts to higher density and descends (Archimedes’s buoyancy principle). The hot air at the tops of clouds doesn’t mix downward very well because of this.the IPCC models assume that the additional humid air over oceans (due to CO2 temperature rise) is able to absorb IR and get hot, without buoyantly rising to form cloud cover which shadow and cool the altitudes below the clouds. The tops of clouds will be hotter than the land and sea under the clouds (simple shadowing due to cloud cover). If this data is simply an average over all altitudes, it will be biased against cloud cover (shadowing) effects, and won’t accurately indicate the mean surface temperature. the IPCC models assume that the additional humid air over oceans (due to CO2 temperature rise) is able to absorb IR and get hot, without buoyantly rising to form cloud cover which shadow and cool the altitudes below the clouds. The vapor absorbs sunlight IR, heats up, expands, rises like a hot air balloon, then condenses into clouds at cooler altitudes.

    The H2O positive feedback assumed in all IPCC models seems at odds with NOAA humidity data: http://vixra.org/pdf/1104.0013v1.pdf

    However crackpot you think this looks, it’s actual data. Not tree ring proxies spliced with heat island data and then with some satellite data tagged on at the end where it helps fabricate a hockey stick curve. Phil Jones, Michael Mann et al. used tree ring proxies up to 1960, direct temperature station data from 1960-80, then satellite data after 1980. Temperature only one variable determining the tree growth rate; others are cloud cover (photosynthesis), and rainfall. Second, direct temperature data from 1960-80 was biased by expanding “heat islands” (cities) for many weather stations. The satellite data is at least consistent and reasonably direct, although it is biased, not the mean temperature under cloud cover.

  3. Nige Cook says:5th March 2012 at 6:37 pmWhat Nurse should be doing is getting the BBC to kill anti-nuclear witchcraft hysteria which pretends that 100% of natural cancers after exposure to radiation are caused by radiation. The early nuclear pioneers tried to do this, but were shouted down by Jane Fonda’s Hollywood scam the China Syndrome and related propaganda.Dr Alvin M. Weinberg (nuclear reactor engineer), “The Second Nuclear Era”, Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, vol. 59, no. 10, Dec 1983, pp. 1048-59 (quotation below from pp. 1055-1056):http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1911916/pdf/bullnyacadmed00086-0194.pdf

    “I am not exaggerating when I say that our Western society, for reasons that are unclear to me, suffers from massive hysteria. It is not entirely unlike the witchcraft hysteria that swept through Western Europe for 200 years beginning in 1494. The analogies are really quite similar, as was first pointed out by the ecologist William Clark. Children got sick, cattle died, crops failed, and people were puzzled: Why did that happen? Obviously, because witches hexed them. Fully a half-million people, mostly women, were executed during that period because they were bona fide witches. And then, in the year 1610, the Inquisitor in the south of Spain put together an advisory committee, and said to the advisory committee: What is the epidemiological evidence for a connection between these witches who are casting their spells and all these bad things happening? And his committee got together, and they considered the matter, and they made a report, and they concluded that they could find no connection between how many witches were killed, or whether the witches were there or not, and all these bad things happening. The Inquisitor did not forbid executing witches. All he did, after due consideration and consultation with many members of the hierarchy, was to forbid the use of torture in extracting confessions from witches. And the result was that witchcraft fell precipitously. … I am not prepared to say that all the environmental insults are simply witchcraft; some of them, of course, are not.”

  4. Nige Cook says:7th March 2012 at 9:05 amWe live in a Wilson cloud chamber: it is how climate is regulated. For graphical proof, see New Scientist editor Calder at: http://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/climate-physics-101/The more cosmic rays, the more ionization trails for clouds to form in the low pressure air of the mid troposphere:Lots of cosmic rays -> lots of ion trails -> lots of cloud cover -> cold

    Few cosmic rays -> few ion trails -> little cloud cover -> hot weather.

    The Science Museum in South Kensington used to have a giant Wilson cloud chamber, where you could watch the cloud trails from cosmic rays actually forming before your eyes. Cirrus clouds form at 15,000 to 20,000 feet, i.e., in the middle of the troposphere. They are enough to tip the balance by shadowing lower altitudes, and produce the climate changes.

    Water vapour molecules absorb wideband infrared, so the sunlight filtered through water will tend to lose the far red end of the spectrum, and appear slightly bluer. Condensed water vapour (cloud droplets) scatter light effectively and appear white in colour.

    Cosmic rays don’t do any heating, a dose of 1 Gray (100 rads) is only 1 Joule/kg, so if they directly drove climate change, we’d be dead from acute radiation poisoning every time a cosmic flare occurred.

    They merely trigger the condensation of water vapour (which saturates very easily in low pressure air) into cloud droplets which reflect back sunlight to space, rather than absorbing infrared as water vapour does. It is a catalytic action. The catalyst does not provide any energy itself. It is merely the trigger for a process that cools the earth by reflecting away sunlight.

Freeman Dyson v the ‘Independent’

The Independent  isn’t very “independent”

Winchester and Princeton scholar Dyson: hell, what does he know about AGW?

Winchester and Princeton scholar Dyson: hell, what does he know about AGW?

So says perhaps the world’s greatest living theoretical physicist Professor Freeman Dyson in a truly glorious exchange with the fervently warmist newspaper’s fervently warmist science editor Steve Connor. (H/T Mitcheltj)

Professor Dyson says:

I wish that The Independent would live up to its name and present a less one-sided view of the issues.

He’s talking, of course, about the ‘Independent’s’ stance on AGW. Of all the British media, not even the Guardian’s Environment pages have quite matched the zeal with which the Indie has promoted the great Man Made Global Warming narrative. Professor Dyson – born in Britain 87 years ago, a scholar at Winchester but a naturalised American, now based at Princeton university is not altogether convinced that the Indie’s alarmism has any factual basis whatsoever.

Here are some of the highlights. (Yes, it’s familiar stuff: but how good it is to see a man of Professor Dyson’s standing and intellect expressing it with such confidence and clarity).

On how the measures currently being taken against “climate change” are doing far more harm than good:

I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain. On the other hand, the remedies proposed by the experts are enormously costly and damaging, especially to China and other developing countries. On a smaller scale, we have seen great harm done to poor people around the world by the conversion of maize from a food crop to an energy crop. This harm resulted directly from the political alliance between American farmers and global-warming politicians. Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by politics more than by science. If it happens that I am wrong and the climate experts are right, it is still true that the remedies are far worse than the disease that they claim to cure.

On the intolerance of Warmists:

You complain that people who are sceptical about the party line do not agree about other things. Why should we agree? The whole point of science is to encourage disagreement and keep an open mind. That is why I blame The Independent for seriously misleading your readers. You give them the party line and discourage them from disagreeing.

With all due respect, I say good-bye and express the hope that you will one day join the sceptics. Scepticism is as important for a good journalist as it is for a good scientist.

On the narrow-minded dogmatism of Warmists and the lack of a ‘consensus’:

Among my friends, I do not find much of a consensus. Most of us are sceptical and do not pretend to be experts. My impression is that the experts are deluded because they have been studying the details of climate models for 30 years and they come to believe the models are real. After 30 years they lose the ability to think outside the models. And it is normal for experts in a narrow area to think alike and develop a settled dogma. The dogma is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. In astronomy this happens all the time, and it is great fun to see new observations that prove the old dogmas wrong.

Unfortunately things are different in climate science because the arguments have become heavily politicised. To say that the dogmas are wrong has become politically incorrect. As a result, the media generally exaggerate the degree of consensus and also exaggerate the importance of the questions.

On how the great AGW threat is based on nothing more than flawed computer models and unsupported assumptions:

First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it.

I look forward to the expert responses below explaining why this foolish old man has got it all wrong. After all, unlike top expert Sir Paul Nurse, Professor Dyson has never even managed to win himself a Nobel Prize.

Related posts:

  1. Delingpole to be appointed Independent’s environment correspondent
  2. Why from now on I’m flying Ryanair
  3. Oh no, not another unbiased BBC documentary about ‘Climate Change’…
  4. At last: expert Sir David King expertly reveals true identity of Climategate ‘hackers’

18 thoughts on “Freeman Dyson v the ‘Independent’”

  1. Chris P says:26th February 2011 at 2:50 amJames – are you really that stupid. When you have heart disease do you seek out an expert on dermatology?

    You are just os incredibly dumb about science it’s not funny.

    He’s a THEORETICAL PHYSICIST – an old one. Not a climatologist.

    Bangs head on table.

  2. Nige Cook says:26th February 2011 at 12:08 pmChris – if you have your heart removed after experiencing the symptoms of ingestion by a consensus of experts who have been duped into exaggerations and then lies by the smell of money (large funding grants), you’re worse off than before.

    Freeman Dyson has first hand experience of censorship at the hands of experts when presenting Feynman’s path integrals. Dyson first showed that Feynman’s path integrals provided a formal way to generalize the Schwinger-Tomonaga calculations to any problem in quantum field theory, in his famous paper “The Radiation Theories of Tomonaga, Schwinger and Feynman”. Dyson suffered greatly from abuse from the consensus of all the famous but bigoted physicists of 1948 for doing this, which caused him severe depression, as he explains in the video “Convincing Oppenheimer”: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-77014189453344068#

    Just to summarize what Feynman and Dyson did for any non-physics readers, in 1925-6 Schroedinger and Heisenberg came up with a false theory of quantum mechanics which used a classical (non-quantum!) electromagnetic field, and introduced the falsehood of intrinsic indeterminancy via the abuse of the uncertainty principle, which it applied directly to real (on-shell) particles like photons and electrons. This approach is non-relativistic due to the Hamiltonian energy operator, that results in a wave equation which puts space and time on different footings.

    Dirac in 1927 overcame this at the expense of doing away with classical fields and replacing them with quantum fields. This is 2nd quantization, since the chaotic electron orbits are produced by the mechanism of the quantum force fields (each force field interaction with an on-shell particle like an orbital electron is a physically discrete event represented by a Feynman diagram, not a smoothly operating classical field). Dirac’s 2nd quantization spinor Hamiltonian replaced E=mc^2 by E=+/-mc^2, and thereby predicted antimatter, which was discovered by Anderson in 1932 (the positron). Feynman then replaced the Hamiltonian with the action principle, and showed that all indeterminancy is produced by a sum over paths of the many different random interactions of a particle with the surrounding quantum field. An electron moves chaotically in the atom because the Coulomb force isn’t classical but is a quantum field:

    ‘Bohr … said: “… one could not talk about the trajectory of an electron in the atom, because it was something not observable.” … Bohr thought that I didn’t know the uncertainty principle … it just made me realize that … [they] … didn’t know what I was talking about, and it was hopeless to try to explain it further.’

    – Dr Jagdish Mehra, The Beat of a Different Drum: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, Oxford, 1994, pp. 245-248.

    The whole of the “wavefunction collapse/quantum entanglement” religion is 1st quantization epicycles, which was debunked in 1927 by Dirac. Yet it lives on because, like epicycles, obfuscation is always preferred by professors of mathematical physics (teaching equations without mechanisms seems more exciting for students, who want to believe that physics is a replacement for metaphysical religion). Professor Alain Aspect’s alleged proof of entangled photons was just proof of the entanglement of 1st quantization by Bell’s Theorem, as criticised by the late Caroline Thompson in her 1999 arxiv paper “Subtraction of ‘accidentals” and the validity of Bell tests”: “In some key Bell experiments, including two of the well-known ones by Alain Aspect, 1981-2, it is only after the subtraction of ‘accidentals’ from the coincidence counts that we get violations of Bell tests. The data adjustment, producing increases of up to 60% in the test statistics, has never been adequately justified.” Feynman explained the why the 1st quantization uncertainty principle is junk physics very clearly:

    ‘… with electrons: when seen on a large scale, they travel like particles, on definite paths. But on a small scale, such as inside an atom, the space is so small that there is no main path, no “orbit”; there are all sorts of ways the electron could go, each with an amplitude. … we have to sum the arrows to predict where an electron is likely to be.’

    – Richard P. Feynman, QED, Penguin Books, London, 1990, Chapter 3, pp. 84-5.

    ‘I would like to put the uncertainty principle in its historical place … If you get rid of all the old-fashioned ideas and instead use the ideas that I’m explaining in these lectures – adding arrows [path amplitudes] for all the ways an event can happen – there is no need for an uncertainty principle!’

    – Richard P. Feynman, QED, Penguin Books, London, 1990, pp. 55-56.

  3. JimmyGiro says:27th February 2011 at 2:23 amChris P wrote:
    “When you have heart disease do you seek out an expert on dermatology?”
    and
    “He’s a THEORETICAL PHYSICIST – an old one. Not a climatologist.”

    Good points Chris, with all these different sciences, makes you wonder where all the “scientific consensus” comes from?

    Then again: “You are just os incredibly dumb about science it’s not funny.”

    Science is the method, not the subject. When baby climatologists first venture from their mothers pouch, and splash about in the font of knowledge, they must at some stage learn the ancient black arts of computer modelling, because, as the dusty old Prof would have it, there ain’t no analytical solutions in them there clouds and stuff. And guess who taught the first climatologists about computer modelling?

  4. Martin Lack says:28th February 2011 at 5:11 pmDear Sirs,

    To: moderators@telegraph.co.uk

    Dear Sirs,

    Whilst I note your policy of not discussing individual moderation decisions, this is not a moderation issue as you have (apparently) suspended my entire blog without warning.

    If so, surely I am entitled to an explanation for such draconian action. However, I would much prefer that you give me an opportunity to put right whatever was wrong: If you have indeed suspended or deleted the entire blog because of a complaint about the banner to my blog, surely I should be given the opportunity to modify it (which I was in fact going to do tomorrow anyway)? Otherwise, this is not moderation, it is summary execution without a fair trial

    I look forward to receiving a substantive explanation at your very earliest convenience.

    Martin Lack.

  5. Nige Cook says:28th February 2011 at 5:55 pm“Those who warn of serious environmental consequences for planet Earth if humankind does not radically change its ways are not trying to spoil anyone’s fun or freedom; they are merely pointing to the truth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. that energy cannot be created nor destroyed) and the reality of Entropy (i.e. that energy conversion leads to increasing disorder in the Universe).”

    – Martin Lack, http://delingpoleworld.com/blog/if-ben-goldacre-thinks-im-a-what-does-that-make-him-1286/comment-page-1/#comment-8558

    Science isn’t about “truth” but about facts. There are no “laws” of science, just facts, which are obfuscatingly represented by “laws” and are scientifically explained by mechanisms. CO2 is causing an increase in cloud cover and fall in water vapour, which is a “greenhouse” gas 30 times more important than CO2. All you’re doing is trying to ignore the facts and assert your own opinions, which appear to be identical to the ignorant propaganda of Al Gore. It’s pretty important to keep Gaddafi off the negotiations for the future of Libya or he’ll just bog the discussion down with deliberately confused propaganda. It’s the same for global warming. I notice that you don’t want to discuss the science, just to repeatedly “attack” Delingpole’s journalistic “authority” status to report facts, which for my money is a million times higher than the status of Dr Nurse, Dr Phil “Hide the Decline” Jones, or Dr von Braun of NASA CO2 emission propaganda.

    James Delingpole makes the point very clearly at the end of the entry on “Global Warming” in his book How to be Right: “if the climate change doom mongers are really so sure all the evidence is on their side, why are they so keen to stifle any arguments which threaten to prove them wrong?”

    The answer is money and dictatorship status. Loonies want to go on stealing taxpayers funding for biased “research” papers which deceive the readers and support a hardened orthodoxy originating from the Nazis. The key problem in science is not censorship per se, but the censorship of objective and scientific (not ad hominem) criticisms. I think the only way forward is to enforce the censorship of science-abusing liars. The deference to “authority” in the case of eugenics propaganda by Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel in 1935, where he lied that gas chambers were needed to prevent a disaster, shows clearly the dangers of permitting pseudoscience to take hold.

  6. James Delingpole says:28th February 2011 at 6:01 pmDear Martin Lack, Thank you for providing the funniest comment in the history of this blog. On the Telegraph website you had a blog with the strapline “Delingpilovshite” – or similar – which you claim you were just on the verge of taking down when, whoops!, you got censored by the cruel and harsh moderators. My heart bleeds.
    all the best James
  7. Martin Lack says:1st March 2011 at 9:26 amHi James,

    Thank you for (at last) acknowledging my existence. I think you were confusing strapline and URL. It was the URL that was a bit cheeky (deliberately so) but is this a reasonable justification for you having got my entire blog removed? If it was not you, who else have I offended? As for the banner photo and purely factual text, yes, I was going to change it today.

    Unlike many of your posts which I believe can be proven to be misleading; and many of your contributors who are extremely abusive much of the time, I suspect that the only thing that was really offensive about my blog is that neither you nor they were unable to falsify anything I posted on it.

    So why don’t you demonstrate your committment to free speech and get my blog re-instated? Or are you going to give me more of that “silent treatment” that you gave Sir Paul Nurse?

    Thanks,

    Martin.

  8. Nige Cook says:1st March 2011 at 9:57 am“Unlike many of your posts which I believe can be proven to be misleading; and many of your contributors who are extremely abusive much of the time …” – Martin Lack

    Factual, Martin. Factual, not abusive. It’s significant that you can’t find or name any specific examples, but instead prefer the more slimy route of trying tarnish everything and everyone with facts that contradict you with a gigantic smear campaign.

    “So why don’t you demonstrate your committment to free speech and get my blog re-instated?” – Martin Lack

    I don’t Churchill had to offer to promote or collaborate with enemy propaganda in order to demonstrate his commitment to “freedom of speech”. You can get a soapbox anywhere. Similarly, I don’t have to invite ad hominem hecklers to abuse me during a talk, just to “prove” I believe in freedom of speech. The excuse you were just a “bit cheeky” doesn’t wash! This isn’t a game, the hundred billion a year being squandered on pseudoscience needs to be redirected to humanity as soon as possible. Your mud-slinging is not helping.

  9. Martin Lack says:1st March 2011 at 10:33 amNige Cook-
    1. The URL was a joke; but the content of the blog was not offensive or abusive.
    2. Unfortunately all the evidence for my assertions is currently unavailable to me or anyone else.
    3. I was not slinging any mud and it is laughable to accuse me of being abusive, when it has been me that has been on the receiveing end of numerous very personal abusive remarks and/or ridicule.
    4. So, I repeat my question, why has my entire blog been removed because of for a stupid URL (that many might not even have noticed) when abusive comments such as the first one in this thread, “James – are you really that stupid. When you have heart disease do you seek out an expert on dermatology?… You are just so incredibly dumb about science it’s not funny…“, are allowed to go unpunished.
    5. Anyway, who are you, his media representative?
  10. Nige Cook says:1st March 2011 at 10:51 am“Unfortunately all the evidence for my assertions is currently unavailable to me or anyone else.” – Martin Lack

    That’s very convenient. Don’t you save anything you write? What is the website server databse is wiped out by a virus? Anyway, Martin, I quoted a comment you made earlier when you claimed falsely that the 2nd law of thermodynamics implies rising entropy and a heat death from global warming.

    Actually, the relevant “law” is not the ever rising entropic “heat death” of the universe from CO2, but instead is Le Châtelier’s principle for a reaction in physical chemistry: the disturbance of the equilibrium of greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 by CO2 injections acts to oppose the change to the equilibrium, and thus to cancel out the effect on temperature from the increase in CO2. A slight change of ocean temperature (after a delay caused by the high specific heat of water, the annual mixing of thermocline waters with deeper waters in storms) ensures that rising CO2 reduces infrared absorbing H2O vapour while slightly increasing cloud cover (thus Earth’s albedo), as evidenced by the fact that the NOAA data from 1948-2008 shows a fall in global humidity (not the positive feedback rise presumed by NASA’s models!), plus the need for Dr Phil Jones to bravely “hide the decline” in the tree ring data (due to the fact tree ring growth is slowed by increased cloud cover/global dimming). I’m nobody’s representative; just trying to understand the mentality of science deniers, e.g. why you ignore/ridicule life-saving physical facts?

  11. Martin Lack says:1st March 2011 at 11:19 amNige, I promise I will re-read your posts and answer your questions but, having done a BSc(Hons) in Geology (1983-86) and an MSc in Hydrogeology (1989-90), I am now doing an MA in Environmental Politics – so I really do not have time for this right now but, suffice it to say (for now) that Climategate was a scam; whereas AGW is real: 60 million years of geological history tells us that much (if we are willing to listen).
  12. Nige Cook says:1st March 2011 at 11:39 amHi Martin, thanks and good luck with your MSc in environmental politics. However your claim “Climategate was a scam; whereas AGW is real: 60 million years of geological history tells us that much” seems naive to me since humans haven’t been around for 60 million years and the A in AGW stands for Anthropogenic (man-made)!

    You do come across like Nobel laureate Carrel’s “scientific” eugenics propaganda in the 1930s, using authority as a scientific argument, and conveniently not having the time to get into the nitty gritty details of science. That’s precisely the attitude of Nurse, Jones, et al.

    If you studied the effects on climate of mountains formation and the Miin your geology modules, you shoule be aware that the variations of CO2 during Earth’s geological record were all caused by rapid temperature changes by means other than CO2 variations, such as cycles in the Earth’s orbit or geological processes that created large mountain ranges. These variations produce the climate change, which in turn caused an imbalance between CO2 absorbers and emitters. Rainforests (CO2 sinks) can be killed off by temperature fall rates which can be compensated for by the migration of CO2 emitting animals. A drop in global temperature caused an increase in the atmospheric CO2 level indirectly, due to the fact that rainforests cannot migrate as quickly as animals, and are therefore more likely to be killed. An increase in global temperatures had the opposite effect, allowing dense rainforests to proliferate faster than the rate of increase of CO2 emitting animals. Therefore, the fossil record correlation between CO2 and temperature is not due to CO2 driving temperature!

    If CO2 AGW theory is correct, the climate would be so unstable that H2O itself would have caused a runaway “greenhouse effect”, without needing CO2:

    “Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases, if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.”

    – Dr Miklos Zagoni, CO2 cannot cause any more “global warming”: Dr Ferenc Miskolczi’s saturated greenhouse effect theory, SPPI Original paper, December 18, 2009, page 4.

    The mechanism which prevents H2O vapour from overheating the world is cloud cover, due to the easily provable fact that heated moist air rises, expanding, cooling and condensing into cloud cover in the rarified air at higher altitudes. Existing climate models with a positive feedback from H2O are plain wrong, since they don’t allow the heated water vapour to rise, forming clouds that contribute to global dimming, offsetting CO2 effects on temperature.

  13. Martin Lack says:2nd March 2011 at 12:19 amNige,

    You asked me to respond to your specific question so I will do so as briefly as possible:

    With regard to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy, I accept that all knowledge in science is provisional and potentially falsifiable, buy I do think it is fair to point to the consequences of these two generally-accepted scientific facts, as indeed I did, in the context of the Limits to Growth argument:”…The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth’s limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair…” However, given that we are talking now about AGW, I will not say anymore; and consider this aspect of the discussion closed.

    It is ironic that a climate change denier should ask someone to be factual, when your entire thesis is based on deliberate misinformation and obfuscation and, apparently, it doesn’t matter how many times your arguments are debunked; you people are seemingly incapable of doing anything other than repeating them. However, if you want facts try these:

    The concept of the so-called “greenhouse effect has been known for over 115 years and clear evidence of a year-on-year rise of CO2 linked to the burning of fossil fuels for at least 50 years (i.e. Keeling’s data from Hawaii). Surely, no-one in their right mind would continue to argue that the planet is not warming up? If so, is this warming due to natural variation? No it is not… By 1850AD, both global average temperatures and CO2 levels were as high as they had been at anytime in the last 400,000 years. Despite the variation due to ice ages (180 to 280 ppm CO2), geologists and biologists agree that our presence on the planet today is due to the relative climatic stability of the last few million years. The last time CO2 levels exceeded 400 ppm, mass extinction of species resulted. It may take 400 years, but the fossil record tells us that it will happen unless we stop releasing 400 million years worth of fossilised carbon back into the atmosphere faster than it or the sea can possibly soak it up. James Lovelock would no doubt say, “Gaia has limits to what she can cope with.”

    One of the most often repeated objections of AGW deniers is that global temperature changes have always preceded CO2 changes. However, the fact of the matter is that the two things are mutually reinforcing – changes in one cause changes in the other. Therefore the fact that we have now caused such a massive increase in CO2 levels makes changes in temperature inevitable.

    If you accept that the temperature change (and increased frequency of extreme weather events of all kinds) is real, but you do not accept that CO2 is the cause, you must come up with a plausible alternative explanation. Sadly, this cannot be sunspot activity because variance in this is short-term and causes variation in UV radiation – which does not have a warming effect. Furthermore, if the Sun was the cause, the whole atmosphere would be warming (i.e. from the outside inwards). However, the reverse is true, indicating warming from the ground-up (i.e. reflected radiation trapped in). Furthermore, the interface between the warmer troposphere and cooler stratosphere is moving slowly upwards. All of this is consistent with AGW/CO2 being the cause.

    Also, if you accept that the climate is changing, water vapour cannot be to blame because it is not increasing at anything like the rate at which CO2 is doing so. Similarly, methane from cows (etc) is posited as a much bigger problem because methane is more than 20 times more potent as a GHG. Sorry but cows have always done what cows do and, in any case, they are just another part of the carbon cycle. In case you hadn’t noticed, the only new aspect to this carbon cycle is the anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels. However, the methane release we should be really scared of is that from the thawing permafrost. Again, this is a new phenomenon and, as with more photosynthesis from plants, has a mutually reinforcing (positive feedback) effect; accelerating the rate of climate change.

    I have already dealt with the proposition that the warming effect is not significant – both ice core data and the fossil record tell us that it is unprecedented in at least the last 55 million years (when the Himalayas began to form) and very significant. So, will the benefits of warming outweigh the advantages? Who are you kidding? Rising sea levels, desertification, forest fires, plagues of insects… Those most likely to be effected are those least able to adapt. Oh, and we will have to wait 400 million years for the next batch of fossil fuels (from all those flooded forests) to become available!

    Technology will come to the rescue(?) May be, but is it worth the risk? Freeman Dyson may criticise Sir Nicholas Stern for not discounting the cost of future expenditure on mitigation but, excuse me, which one of them is the economist? Stern knew exactly what he was doing: He did not use this economic tool because we are not talking about our grandchildren’s ability to buy a house; we are talking about action that needs to be taken now to minimise the effects of climate change. Finally, climate change contrarians claim that we shouldn’t wreck the economy in order to solve a problem that may not be that serious. This is ridiculous. The problem is very clearly very serious.

    If this was a Court of Law, the case against CO2 and fossil fuel burning has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and, if this were a simple cost-benefit analysis, the case is also very clear – the risks of not tackling the problem vastly outweigh those of taking action (or mass extinction of species will eventually result). This was the conclusion of Sir Nicholas Stern; and it is ridiculous for a non-economist to try and suggest that he was wrong.
    I have decided not to litter this post with hyperlinks to the sources upon which I rely but, much of it is based on the best summary I have yet found on the Internet, which is the American Institute of Physics website.

    It is ridiculous to suggest that non-scientists like James Delingpole could possibly be more reliable than peer-reviewed science. On the contrary, information sloshing around on the Internet is invariably unreliable. For example, “reality returns” (a regular on JD’s Telegraph blog) recently posted the following reply to me there. However, having done some digging, I have found out that both his assertions were very misleading…
    1. “In considering any claim to scientific consensus, it seems appropriate to note the following statement by Dr Benjamin Santer, author of the 2007 IPCC report chapter on the detection of greenhouse warming – who is not a sceptic (to my knowledge): ‘It’s unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the chapter on the detection of greenhouse warming. I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say that the attribution issue was a done deal… “ AIthough I did not think that Ben Santer had ever doubted the reality of AGW, at very least, this quote is 12 years out of date because (if he actually said it at all) he was referring to AR2 in 1995 not AR4 in 2007.
    2. “The [IPCC has] misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Dr Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and UN-IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was ‘only a few dozen experts’, he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate are disingenuous’, the paper states unambiguously, adding that ‘they rendered the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism…’.” I have since found out that Mike Hulme’s views (June 2010) were misquoted/misrepresented

    Unfortunately, all this just goes to show how right George Monbiot was to say that, “…people like Lord Monckton, Ian Plimer, Christopher Booker and James Delingpole act as an echo-chamber for each other’s discredited beliefs.”

    Here endeth the lesson.

  14. Nige Cook says:2nd March 2011 at 9:20 amMartin, you’ve ignored every fact again! You haven’t responded to anything stated. You falsely stated in your earlier comment that AGW has evidence going back 60 million years, when humans haven’t even been around for 60 million years. You ignore the fact that the earth’s climate is always varying, so the probability of a temperature rise correlating with CO2 emission is 50%. You ignore the fact that correlation doesn’t imply causation. You ignore the fact that the H2O positive feedback theory is wrong by NOAA data for 61 years from 1948, which shows a fall in water vapour, not a positive feedback (increase) due to CO2 emission. You write:

    ‘The concept of the so-called “greenhouse effect has been known for over 115 years and clear evidence of a year-on-year rise of CO2 linked to the burning of fossil fuels for at least 50 years (i.e. Keeling’s data from Hawaii). Surely, no-one in their right mind would continue to argue that the planet is not warming up? If so, is this warming due to natural variation? No it is not… By 1850AD, both global average temperatures and CO2 levels were as high as they had been at anytime in the last 400,000 years. Despite the variation due to ice ages (180 to 280 ppm CO2), geologists and biologists agree that our presence on the planet today is due to the relative climatic stability of the last few million years. The last time CO2 levels exceeded 400 ppm, mass extinction of species resulted.’

    You provide no evidence that the earth is a “greenhouse”, which it obviously isn’t, no matter how many people claim the opposite. No greenhouse contains H2O cloud cover that increases as CO2 levels rise! No greenhouse has oceans that evaporate slightly faster when CO2 levels rise, increasing cloud cover slightly and cancelling out temperature effects.

    The CO2 level in the atmosphere is currently increasing due to burning fossil fuels, that correlation is fine since Hawaii is well away from direct sources of CO2 pollution. The error is in the temperature record, not the CO2 record. You can’t scientifically assert that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature driven by CO2 increases. You’re putting up a smokescreen of obfuscation by ignoring the proved errors in AGW theory which are (a) H2O feedback and (b) the temperature record. The alleged accuracy of tree-ring growth as proxy of temperature is disproved by the biological fact that tree growth is critically sensitive to sunshine exposure, not just temperature. This is one reason why the tree ring record after 1960 hasn’t correlated with thermometer readings: global dimming. Then there is the problem of the direct temperature measurements, affected by the heating up of expanding upwind towns and cities, and the the bias in satellite temperature assessments that can’t observe the Planck temperature of the surface through cloud cover. The fact you don’t know that the temperature data is all a gross fiddle debunks your case!

    “It is ridiculous to suggest that non-scientists like James Delingpole could possibly be more reliable than peer-reviewed science. On the contrary, information sloshing around on the Internet is invariably unreliable.”

    Why is it ridiculous that outsiders can see the groupthink lies more clearly than insiders? The claim that outside criticisms are “invariably unreliable” is just what Gaddafi would say about criticism. It’s devoid of content. You’ve proved that you don’t know the facts from the misleading statements you’ve made, and then you defer judgement to the decision of consensus, or as you put it “peer-reviewed science”. This is precisely what the Creationists did.

    “If this was a Court of Law, the case against CO2 and fossil fuel burning has been proven beyond reasonable doubt …”

    Sea levels have risen 120 metres over the past 18,000 years, a mean rate of rise of 12000/18,000 = 0.67 cm/year. This is just an average; at some times the rate of rise was a lot faster than 0.67 cm/year. Over the past century sea levels have risen 20 cm, or 20/100 = 0.20 cm/year. The maximum rate of rise has been about 0.4 cm/year.

    The climate change record is abused by lying propaganda as a core foundation for the allegation that today’s climate change rate is unprecedented, which it clearly is not. The roots of the AWG lie are the previous “coming ice age” lie of the 1960s, Ernst Hass’s “Common Opponent Sought … and Found?” article in the Nov 1968 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: “Why should we not replace the present arms race among nations with a common fight against a global opponent.” It’s the old Nazi “Reichstag fire” trick of using a lie about a threat as a means to take dictatorial control, crush all dissenters, and be hailed a hero into the bargain.

    Your opening Limits to Growth quotation is purely the Nazi living space myth: we’re all going to starve if exponential growth continues, which simply ignores the fact that the extra humans can produce extra food. You assume that the increased population will behave like sitting ducks, doing nothing. The best rebuttal to this is a critical reading of Clarke’s 1971 Science of War and Peace which begins with a table showing the allegedly exponential rise in war casualties from 1820, alleging 5.4 million deaths in war from 1820-99, 43 million from 1900-49, and extrapolating to predict 360 million deaths in WWIII before 1999. Well, we know one error from extrapolation there.

    But there is another error, too. Between 1851-64, 20 million were killed in the Taiping Rebellion in China, so his claim of only 5.4 million war deaths from 1820-99 is wrong. Just like AGW today, during the Cold War falsified war history was used to fit exponential rise scaremongering.

    “I have already dealt with the proposition that the warming effect is not significant – both ice core data and the fossil record tell us that it is unprecedented in at least the last 55 million years (when the Himalayas began to form) and very significant.”

    The geological record refutes your argument about CO2 driving temperature. The original version of GEOCARB suggested that the atmospheric CO2 abundance was over 15 times higher 460 million years ago than it is now, and at that time the mean global temperature was 7 C higher than now (22 C compared to an assumed global mean temperature now of 15 C). Some 210 million years ago, the CO2 level is estimated to have been 5 times the current level, and the mean global temperature was estimated to have been 5 C warmer than now (20 C compared to 15 C assumed as today’s global mean temperature). Even just 100 million years ago, there were no continuous ice caps at the poles (just winter snow): all the ice melted in the summer at the poles, and deciduous rain forests existed within 1,000 km of the poles.

    One example of a climatic change caused by normal geological processes is the formation of the Tibetian plateau which effectively cooled the whole planet by strengthening the monsoon system in southern Asia and forming the Himalayas. Beginning about 50 million years ago (and continuing to the present day), the drift of the continental plates has caused the continents of India and Eurasia to collide, pushing up oceanic crust from the bottom of the sea to form the Himalayan mountain chain and the Tibetian plateau. Similarly, the Alps are the result of a collision beginning 120 million years ago between Africa and Eurasia, and also had an effect on global climate.

    The temperature changes caused by such natural phenomena can cause CO2 levels to vary by killing off CO2-absorbing rainforests which can’t move, while CO2-emitting animals can migrate to compensate for the climatic change. Hence, there can be a true correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, even where there is no mechanism for CO2 levels to affect temperature: the opposite mechanism has occurred, in that a changing climatic temperature has resulted in a variation of CO2 levels!

    Yet another example of a mechanism for natural climatic change is the Earth’s orbit which undergoes three cycles named after Milutin Milankovich, the Serbian astronomer who in 1941 worked out how the planets perturb one another’s orbits.

  15. Martin Lack says:2nd March 2011 at 12:02 pmNige,
    I am amazed how much time you have to spare, I am not so lucky (and had to stay up into the early hours of this morning to respond). Did you actually bother to read anything in my last post? It was an entirely logical point-by-point refutation of all the arguments but forward to suggest that carbon dioxide is not causing the climate change we are now seeing. If you are a physicist, I will not give you a lecture on physics but, given my qualifications and experience, will you please reciprocate by not trying to impress me with your knowledge of either the rock cycle or water cycle…
    However, for the record, I did not say “AGW has been happening for 60 million years”, which would have been patently ridiculous. What I said was, “AGW is real: 60 million years of geological history tells us that much…” The two are not the same, and I have explained myself fully already on this point.
    Please, please, please, do not lecture me on the difference between causation and correlation. The only positive feedback loops I have invoked are those existing between CH4 release from permafrost and temperature change; and between CO2 and temperature change. With regard to the latter, my point was that, whereas Milankovitch cycles caused the ice ages by causing temperature changes then CO2 changes, the fact that we have now caused CO2 changes will result in temperature changes precisely because the two are mutually reinforcing and it does not matter which happens first.
    I am aware of the fact that the “greenhouse” analogy is imperfect but if you want to argue that CO2 is not the cause of global warming why don’t you go and live on Venus (where temperature and pressure are now both 90 times those here on Earth).
    I think you will find the sea level rise over the last 18,000 years was due to us coming out of the last ice age. Therefore, if the temperature rises now by a further 4 Celsius then, by your own argument, we are in serious trouble.
    Why don’t you remind me that the global population will probably stabilise at 9 billion by 2050 (everyone else does) and miss the point (everyone else does). We cannot make perpetual efficiency improvements in consumption. Therefore, perpetual growth must lead to accelerating rates of resource depletion. That was my point.
    The same people that are now trying to find fault with the AGW consensus, tried to convince us smoking was not dangerous. If anything in “Merchants of Doubt” (Oreskes and Conway, 2010) is false, they should be sued to the maximum extent possible in US Law. However, I would be willing to bet my house on the fact that they won’t be sued, because it is all true. When Rachel Carson exposed the hyper-expensive – and ultimately ineffective – folly of using extremely toxic chlorinated hydrocarbons to control weeds and pests, big business attacked her in exactly the same way that the fossil fuel lobby has tried to deny the reality of AGW (like King Canute trying to hold back the tide).
    However, just as the publication of “Silent Spring” led to sense prevailing by the imposition of strict controls being imposed on the use of dangerous chemicals, I believe denialism is doomed. I just hope the Earth is not.
  16. Nige Cook says:2nd March 2011 at 2:23 pmMartin, I don’t have any time to waste, and you ignored every point and you do the same again!

    “Did you actually bother to read anything in my last post? It was an entirely logical point-by-point refutation of all the arguments but forward to suggest that carbon dioxide is not causing the climate change we are now seeing.”

    I answered your post which ignored all the facts that debunk AGW, but you still make no mention of the flaw in the greenhouse theory, the false positive feedback from H2O proved by NOAA data: http://nige.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/new.gif

    As the CO2 and CH4 (methane) level goes up, H2O vapour in the atmosphere falls which – because H2O is 30 times more important than CO2 as a “greenhouse gas” offsets the effect of CO2 on temperature, while cloud cover and albedo increases because warmed moist air rises to form clouds, further cooling the world.

    “… please reciprocate by not trying to impress me with your knowledge of either the rock cycle or water cycle …”

    I’m not trying to impress you, I’m trying to get you to learn why the natural variations in temperature have nothing to do with CO2. “What I said was, “AGW is real: 60 million years of geological history tells us that much…” The two are not the same, and I have explained myself fully already on this point.” The geological record, as I explained, refutes AGW. The CO2 in the atmosphere responds to temperature changes that kill off rainforests. If the temperature rises and rainforests become deserts and die, then the CO2 level in the atmosphere rises because the vegetation is no longer locking up CO2 from the atmosphere. Similarly, if temperatures fall, vegetation spreads and atmospheric CO2 level fall because CO2 is locked up in vegetation. You don’t grasp this fact because you claim wrongly:

    “With regard to the latter, my point was that, whereas Milankovitch cycles caused the ice ages by causing temperature changes then CO2 changes, the fact that we have now caused CO2 changes will result in temperature changes precisely because the two are mutually reinforcing and it does not matter which happens first.”

    Not so, the atmospheric CO2 (and indeed CH4 from permafrost) responds to temperature changes! It doesn’t drive climate, but is driven by climate. It has no effect on temperature because the shift of atmospheric H2O cancels out variations on CO2 and CH4 on temperature. Then you write:

    “I am aware of the fact that the “greenhouse” analogy is imperfect but if you want to argue that CO2 is not the cause of global warming why don’t you go and live on Venus (where temperature and pressure are now both 90 times those here on Earth).”

    This is actually evidence against AGW, because Venus takes 243 days to rotate so is baked on one side facing the sun without respite for all that time, and is closer to the sun that the Earth, and its total atmospheric surface pressure of 93 atmospheres (96.5% CO2), so whereas the mass of Earth’s atmosphere is 10 tons per square metre of surface area; on Venus it’s 930 tons per square metre, mainly CO2. What counts in producing the greenhouse effect on Venus are the differences to the Earth, such as the lack of oceans on Venus (Oceans cover 71% of Earth’s surface area), and the much higher total atmospheric pressure. All that happened on Venus to turn its atmosphere to CO2 was the reduction of carbonate rock by the intense solar heating, from being closer to the sun and taking 243 days to rotate. The scorched limestone rocks, i.e. CaCO3, were decomposed by the high temperature into lime, CaO, plus CO2, thus releasing further CO2 into the air!

    You omit the opposite example of the planet Mars. Mars is similar to Venus in having a large fraction of its atmosphere composed of CO2: 96% in fact. However, this is quite different to the runaway greenhouse effect of Venus. Mars has a low total surface air pressure, only about 0.64% of Earth’s, and the nitrogen partial pressure is about 5,800 times smaller than Earth’s. In particular, Mars has a mean surface temperature much smaller than Earth’s, a chilly −46 °C. This is obviously caused in part by the extra distance from the sun and in part by the low total atmospheric pressure, despite the large percentage of CO2. Nevertheless, it is clear that if there is a runaway greenhouse effect on Mars, then Mars is very cold as a result. While Venus is ideal political propaganda for global warming from CO2, Mars is less satisfactory! Even though there is no proved instance of life on Mars, the climate there is still changing as recorded by NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor:

    “… for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars’ south pole have shrunk from the previous year’s size, suggesting a climate change in progress.”

    – NASA, September 20, 2005: Orbiter’s Long Life Helps Scientists Track Changes on Mars.

    Like Mars, climate changes on Earth are natural. So why haven’t the massive natural changes in climate on the Earth triggered a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus? Answer: the “greenhouse” gases are in stable equilibrium, with H2O falling as CO2 and CH4 increase, and vice-versa! This is an example of Le Châtelier’s principle of disturbed equilibria.

    “Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans. …” – Dr. Miklos Zagoni.

    Next you claim:

    “I think you will find the sea level rise over the last 18,000 years was due to us coming out of the last ice age. Therefore, if the temperature rises now by a further 4 Celsius then, by your own argument, we are in serious trouble.”

    My whole point is that we’re been coming out of an ice age for 18,000 years, so the probability that we’re in a warming spell would seem to be over 50% at present (climate is always either warming or cooling). Therefore, the CO2 correlation with alleged temperature rises is meaningless. The second sentence is completely misleading. Nobody predicts such a temperature rise, you don’t say what time scale, or the mechanism involved. The climate will vary in the future naturally! We can’t stop all the mechanisms. Oceanic plates are still pushing up mountain ranges, the Gulf stream conveyor could vary naturally (it does start and stop occasionally, causing climatic change). The big lie is to pretend every natural change is “unnatural” and due to humanity, the use this lie to waste taxpayers money on ego-massaging BBC and Guardian journalists with green eco-fanatics pension funds. Instead, we have to live with the natural variability of nature.

    “Why don’t you remind me that the global population will probably stabilise at 9 billion by 2050 (everyone else does) and miss the point (everyone else does). We cannot make perpetual efficiency improvements in consumption. Therefore, perpetual growth must lead to accelerating rates of resource depletion. That was my point.”

    You’re simply wrong in claiming that humans are not innovative and enterprising enough to make “perpetual efficiency improvements in consumption”, and to claim that adding to the human population is a problem. Provided that the added population can contribute to food production, there is no problem. Malthus assumes that population increases exponentially, but that food production increases more slowly than exponentially! That’s his false assumption. Provided the two increase at the same rate, everyone goes on eating. Your error, time after time, is the same thing: starting with a false assumption and believing in it like a divine dogma.

  17. Martin Lack says:2nd March 2011 at 3:05 pmI am – and always have been – a fan of Monty Python but, I think I prefer to watch the Is this the right room for an argument?” sketch, rather than to take part in it. So, thanks all the same but, I must decline your kind invitation; as I really do not have the time to spare.

    You can believe in your conspiracy theory; and I will believe in mine. However, whereas yours requires a multifarious global cosnpiracy to exist; mine only requires a small number of extremely influential scientists to exist and propogate doubt and disinformation (as you and your well-meaning kind do the rest).

    I think this “discussion” (lol) is now over; as both of us clearly believes the other to be delusional. However, I do not think we have long to wait to see who is right (it will certainly be within my children’s lifetime – if not my own).

  18. Bill says:3rd March 2011 at 6:35 amML many of your comments are just ignorant. To pick just a few:-

    -Earth’s temperature has not been “unusually stable while humans have evolved over the past few million years”. For the past 2.5m years climate has been usually unstable with a sucession of glacials and interglacials, that are otherwise uncommon in geological history.
    -CO2 has been way above 400ppm for allmost all of geologic history except the last few million years. Despite that, mass extinctions have been rare, (about every 20 to 30m years or so). I have not heard of CO2 being advanced as the reason for any mass extinction except possibly the PETM.
    -We are not releasing 400m years of sequestrated carbon – only a quite small portion of it.
    Most sequested carbon is in shale and limestone deposits which cannot be burnt.

    I could go on and on, suffice to say I think your claim that you have a geology degree is just bullshit. Anyone with a backgroung in geology could not be as ignorant as that. If you do actually have a degree, that is very sad commentary on British universities.

Comments are closed.

I thought I was having a Nobel laureate for tea. Instead, the BBC had me for lunch

Last week I was stitched up like a kipper by the BBC.

Perhaps you saw the programme — a Horizon documentary called Science Under Attack. Perhaps you were even among the dozens whom it inspired to send me hate emails along the lines of, ‘Ha ha. Think you know more about science than a Nobel prizewinner do you? Idiot!’ Perhaps it’s time I set the record straight.

It started in August last year when I had an email from a BBC producer/director called Emma Jay. She was making a film on ‘public trust in science’ to be presented by the next President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse. ‘The tone of the film is very questioning but with no preconceptions,’ she wrote. ‘Sir Paul is very aware of the culpability of scientists and that will come across in the film. They will not be portrayed as white-coated magicians who should be left to work in their ivory towers — their failings will be dealt with in detail.’ As an ‘influential blogger on climate change’, would I chat to Nurse about my views? Though I had my suspicions, I agreed after Emma had reassured me that Nurse was genuinely open-minded on the subject and had no axe to grind.

In fact I was rather looking forward to the meeting. It’s not often you get an actual Nobel laureate (Physiology or Medicine, 2001) popping round to your home. Besides, I was keen to find out what he planned to do about the Royal Society’s increasingly embarrassing position on anthropogenic global warming.AdTech Ad

Both his predecessors — Lord May and Lord Rees — were fanatical warmists and shifted the Royal Society’s politics accordingly. Last year, 43 of the Royal Society’s members wrote in protest at its advocacy of what remains an unproven hypothesis. By allying itself so closely to the politicised ‘consensus’, the Royal Society seemed to be betraying its traditions of honest scepticism (‘Nullius in verba’) and also running the risk of one day being proved humiliatingly wrong.

What I didn’t properly consider — though of course I should, having done the odd bit of TV myself — is how documentaries like this really work. When your presenter announces, as he so often does, that he is ‘going on a journey of discovery’, he is in fact doing no such thing. Right from the start, often before the presenter has even been chosen, the director and producer know exactly where the film is going and what it is going to say. The interviewees are mere pawns: the camera is to be pointed at them until such time as they can be prodded into saying what the documentary requires.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. The Nobel Prize: way deadlier, more damaging and evil than dynamite
  2. Sir Paul Nurse – saviour of the universe!
  3. RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’
  4. Obama’s won the Nobel Peace – WTF?!

One thought on “I thought I was having a Nobel laureate for tea. Instead, the BBC had me for lunch”

  1. Nige Cook says:13th February 2011 at 11:53 amFearless Frank, if you replay the video a few times, http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=3Un7u2AZnjw&vq=medium#t=14 you see the that James gave the right answer. Nurse believes the Club of Rome’s 1974 claim in its report Mankind at the Turning Point: “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man”, so he uses this cancer diagnosis consensus argument on James Delingpole, who after hours of discussion (edited out by the BBC and Nurse) has told Nurse that AGW is “not science”.

    The cancer analogy presumes that the earth has cancer. In 1974 when the Club of Rome formulated it, the consensus was that global cooling (due to dust and pollution from natural volcanic eruptions and from industry) was screening out sunlight, and we were in for runaway glaciation and a new ice age. This was even popularized in the 1967 BBC Dr Who sci fi tale, “The Ice Warriors”, where future Britain is being swamped by glaciers.

    AWG is not science, but is a political manipulation due to efforts to promote ignorance by using “peer”-review to censor out the NASA scientists who discovered the facts about negative feedback on CO2 temperature changes from increased cloud cover, and “hide the decline” lying using data fidding from tree rings (which aren’t a proxy for temperature, since tree growth in the real world is sensitive to other factors, especially cloud cover). They don’t have any mechanism for CO2 to affect temperature. The earth is not a greenhouse, because you don’t have any cloud cover inside a greenhouse! Pumping out more CO2 just affects the cloud cover, not the temperature.

    If anyone is pathetic, it’s not James.

Comments are closed.

The Curious Double Standards of Simon Singh

Because mathematics?Singh

I know I promised yesterday that I wasn’t going to post about that ruddy Horizon documentary again but I’m afraid my hand has been forced by Simon Singh.

Yes, Simon Singh as in the popular mathematician and bestselling author of Fermat’s Last Theorem. And also, more germanely to this story, the recent victim of an expensive libel action brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA). The BCA eventually dropped its action – but not before Singh had run up £200,000 in legal costs. Though some it his lawyers will be able to claim back, he’s still likely to lose £60,000 of his own money as a result of his brave, principled decision to fight the case rather than cave in earlier.

I hugely respected him for what he did. He won a victory (albeit a financially Pyrrhic one) not just for himself but for all those of us who trade in robust opinion and who believe that English libel laws are outrageously biased in favour of vexatious complainants, which is why we have unfortunately become a haven for libel tourists, some of them representing unspeakable causes.

As he said afterwards:

“English libel law is so intimidating, so expensive, so hostile to serious journalists that it has a chilling effect on all areas of debate, silencing scientists, journalists, bloggers, human rights activists and everyone else who dares to tackle serious matters of public interest.”

Among those “serious matters of public interest”, you might imagine, would be Climate Change. Urged on by the increasingly doom-laden pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s governments are presenting taxpayers with the biggest bill in history to deal with a threat they call Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Besides costing the global economy trillions of dollars, the threat of AGW has been used to justify everything from biofuels (which have led to the destruction of rain forests and increases in food prices, especially damaging to the world’s poor) to the blighting of countryside with wind farms and solar panels (which have wreaked havoc with economies including Spain’s). None of this is a matter of opinion and conjecture. It is provable, solidly back by much evidence and I have written about it many times on this blog – with sources and references, which anyone is free to check up on by revisiting my archive of posts.

Yet in the opinion of Singh, the worldwide Climate Change industry is the one area where the robust scepticism and empiricism he professes to believe in just doesn’t apply. Apparently, the job of a journalist is just to accept the word of “the scientists” and take it as read that being as they are “scientists” their word is God and it brooks no questioning or dissent. That’s it. Finished. There’s a “consensus” on global warming. It’s immutable and correct. And anyone who disputes it is a vexatious denier informed by nothing but ignorance and who deserves nothing other than to be hounded and bullied and abused by the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC, Simon Singh’s Twitter mob, Ben Goldacre’s Twitter mob, and the shrill nest of paid-for trolls who infest the comments below this blog not to present a reasoned case but merely to disrupt and offend.

Well I’m sick of it.

What sickens me is the hypocrisy of people who claim to be in favour of speech, claim to believe in empiricism, claim to be sceptics yet refuse to accept room for an honest, open debate on one of the most important political issues of our time.

And just this afternoon, Simon Singh – purported defender of free speech; enemy of junk science – joined the ranks of those disgraceful hypocrites with a message on Twitter.

(Yeah I know a lot of your say “Why bother with Twitter”. But Singh speaks to a reasonably large audience of 14,500 followers. His views influence people’s opinion, so it matters)

Here’s what he Tweeted:

Sorry, but @JamesDelingpole deserves mockery ‘cos he has the arrogance to think he knows more of science than a Nobel Laureate

Is that the message Singh really took from the BBC’s Horizon documentary? When did I ever make that claim?

I have no doubt whatsoever that Sir Paul Nurse knows more about genetics than I do. It is, after all, where the field in which he won his Nobel prize. As for science, sure, Nurse has the advantage over me there, too. He has a PhD. He’s a science graduate and I’m an arts graduate. But then I’ve never pretended otherwise. My case is not that I “James Delingpole have taken a long hard look at the science of global warming and discovered through careful sifting of countless peer-reviewed papers that the experts have got it all wrong.”

What I am saying, and I say almost every day, is that the evidence is not as robust as the “consensus” scientists claim; that there are many distinguished scientists all round the world who dispute this alleged “consensus”; that true science doesn’t advance through “consensus” and never has; that the Climategate emails threw the peer-review process into serious doubt by demonstrating how eminently corruptable it is; that there are many vested interests out there determined and able to spend a great deal of money by making out that the case for catastrophic, man-made global warming is much stronger than it is. And on these specific issues I can reasonably claim to be better informed than Sir Paul Nurse, regardless of how many PhDs he has, because I’ve spent much more time than he has researching them and because they are not issues which require an exclusively scientific knowledge to understand. They just require the basic journalistic skill of being able to read and analyse.

Yet despite apparently knowing nothing more about me and what I do than he has learned from a heavily politicised BBC documentary, and maybe heard from his mob of Twitter bully chums or read in the Guardian, Singh feels able to decide that Paul Nurse is right on this issue and I’m wrong. Well I don’t call that an evidence-based argument. I call that dishonest, thoughtless and – given the high ethical standards Singh claims to represent – outrageously hypocritical.

I would be genuinely impressed – and even more surprised – if Singh himself, and all those of his Twitter chums who’ve been harassing me with vile messages, were prepared to read this piece to the end, consider what it says and respond thoughtfully. I don’t mind the occasional ad homs: they have their place in an argument. But if ad homs (and Appeals to Authority: eg “Sir Paul Nurse has got a Nobel prize and you haven’t, ergo he is right and you’re wrong…”) are all you can muster, then it says much for the poverty and ignorance of your cause.

You can disagree with me all you like on whether or not you think global warming is man made; on how much we should spend to deal with it; on whether mankind is a cancer on the earth or a force for good; on any number of issues. But what I can’t abide any more is what has been happening all this week, irresponsibly orchestrated by Sir Paul Nurse, the BBC and their dishonest, ferociously lopsided “documentary”: the frenzied witch-hunt of a journalist and blogger who has done no more than journalists and bloggers should be doing in a free and open society.

Those who can come up with reasoned riposte – or indeed an apology, and that means especially you Simon Singh – I will respect.

Those who cannot are ought to look into their hearts and ask themselves: “If my cause is really so powerful and right and true, how come its response to any kind of criticism is not to engage with it through argument but merely to try to silence it with censorship, appeals to authority, crude character assassination and establishment cover ups?”

Related posts:

  1. Simon Singh: is there anything he doesn’t know?
  2. Simon Singh’s for the joy of solar energy
  3. The curious rise of bottled water
  4. RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’

7 thoughts on “The curious double standards of Simon Singh”

  1. Richard Treadgold says:30th January 2011 at 8:32 amJames, I had to congratulate you when I noticed just now that your “Curious double standards” article at the Telegraph has achieved a remarkable 2100+ comments (and rising). Many of them are not worth the ether onto which they’re posted, but the mere fact that such huge numbers of your opponents consider your article a suitable pennant beneath which to quarrel magnifies your reputation.

    They are a tribute to your writing skills. Writing is learning. Readers don’t understand that, thinking that they are the ones doing the learning; neither do the argumentative, seeing nothing but the bickering they relish. Only the thoughtful know how much must be learned every time words are set down to be read.

    Your writing is perceptive, fearless and enthralling. To read it is to know you, your subject and myself a little more.

    I hope you keep up your fine work.

    Warm regards,
    Richard Treadgold.

  2. Bronny says:30th January 2011 at 3:48 pmWell, I’ll point out that quantity does not mean quality, 2100+ posts or not. This was a really petty article and makes the author sound like a petulant child. Dr. Singh’s libel case was to make sure discussion can be had without fear of legal reprisals, something from which we will all benefit. But you mention it and then mangle it up in statement about only scientists being able to discuss science based issues. No-one is suggesting those not qualified to high heaven should not have an opinion, but if I had to decide on a consensus reached on a complex scientific issue by a room full of scientists and the consensus reached by a room full of Heat readers then I know which I’d have greater faith in. Unless the topic was about whether Jordan looks better blonde or brunette of course. I do believe that peer review is an essential process in assessing validity of arguments, and the ability to understand the context of the arguments being made and even the precise meanings of the words used. Consensus is a process which does exists within all sciences, however, the very nature of scientific research is not to just to prove that something does work but also to advance evidence that previously accepted statements as not now working and are invalid. It should be about constantly challenging the status quo.

    I am a scientist, but not one qualified in the area of climate variations, but should I want to learn more about the arguments then I know which publications I’d turn to to get my facts. Unfortunately Mr Delingpole many people don’t appreciate that just because you have a lot to say on the subject that you don’t necessarily know anymore than anyone else, and a blog on the web is really not the best way to get the facts on the subject (by those on either side of the argument). By helping to create a pretty nasty environment in which global warming is discussed you are really not doing anyone a favour, and perhaps, just perhaps, it is because you don’t have the rigourous background as the scientists against which you rally. It is this tone and attitude which makes you a vexatious denier not what you are saying. You contribute to an atmosphere where absolutes are stated as correct and discourage people to listen to the “enemy”, which helps absolutely no-one. Science benefits from real discussion, not from sticking your fingers in your ears singing “I’m not listening, I’m not listening”. Scientists are not doing the best job they could do at explaining why the consensus, as it stands, states a certain process is occuring – that’s something they need to deal with. However, I don’t find that your attitude in any way helpful to addressing this issue.

    As for this petulant article anyone can read back on Twitter and see that Dr Singh quite clearly proposed an opportunity for you to discuss the issue of AGW in public, on the record, with experts in the field (because he acknowledges he is not an expert in this field, just as you aren’t). You say “What sickens me is the hypocrisy of people who claim to be in favour of speech, claim to believe in empiricism, claim to be sceptics yet refuse to accept room for an honest, open debate on one of the most important political issues of our time.” and yet he proposed the opportunity for such open debate, but you had your fingers in your ears singing “I’m not listening” and then rushed off to write a really unnecessary and petty article, further riling up the others with fingers in their ears.

    I suspect this is more about your pride and the Horizon programme than you feeling bullied by the mob, but that is unbelievably selfish of you considering the importance of the global warming debate. Perhaps next time you put fingers to keyboard you could consider whether it can make a positive contribution to society and not whether it can help correct one of your petty ego niggles.

  3. Nige Cook says:30th January 2011 at 10:19 pm“Scientists are not doing the best job they could do at explaining why the consensus, as it stands, states a certain process is occuring – that’s something they need to deal with.” – Bronny

    What struck me was the arrogance of everyone except James in the BBC’s Horizon: Science Under Attack programme. Sir Paul asks the American NASA “expert” about climate change models and is shown a double screen comparison of weather forecasting a few days ahead with actual satellite data (no proof that the same model is valid for predicting climate a hundred years hence). The BBC edit it as much as possible to prevent the viewer seeing the differences, instead focussing on the American guy saying “seeing is believing”.

    The same guy also tells Sir Paul that he “doesn’t know” why critics of climate science doubt the effect of CO2 on climate (itself a remarkable admission, since if I don’t bother to learn and refute/correct for criticisms, I expect to be fired), then he suggests lamely with a shrug that he “think” the critics worry about the “details of the temperature record, or the carbon record”. Er, good guess.

    If he had bothered to research the objections further, he might actually find why the computer model is no use: (1) the tree-ring growth temperature data is all suspect because tree growth depends on cloud cover, pollution (including “natural” volcanic dust and chemicals like sulphur dioxide) and rain as well as air temperature, and (2) increased temperatures cause increased evaporation, which isn’t going into increased low level air humidity (according to measurements since the 1940s), so apparently is going into increased cloud cover instead. This usually reflects sunlight back, regulating climate.

  4. Nige Cook says:31st January 2011 at 10:31 amJames, can you sometime write something about the fraud in superstring theory, please? It’s a perfect analogy to the history of the global warming groupthink scam. The best place to start is with Dr Peter Woit, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Woit :

    “For the last eighteen years particle theory has been dominated by a single approach to the unification of the Standard Model interactions and quantum gravity. This line of thought has hardened into a new orthodoxy that postulates an unknown fundamental supersymmetric theory involving strings and other degrees of freedom with characteristic scale around the Planck length. […] It is a striking fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this complex and unattractive conjectural theory. There is not even a serious proposal for what the dynamics of the fundamental ‘M-theory’ is supposed to be or any reason at all to believe that its dynamics would produce a vacuum state with the desired properties. The sole argument generally given to justify this picture of the world is that perturbative string theories have a massless spin two mode and thus could provide an explanation of gravity, if one ever managed to find an underlying theory for which perturbative string theory is the perturbative expansion.”

    – Quantum Field Theory and Representation Theory: A Sketch, Dr Woit, 2002 arxiv paper, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0206135

    Please see Dr Woit’s continuing blog exposing lying hype, Not Even Wrong. His latest post is “Is the Multiverse Immoral?” http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3419 which contains the very telling comment from the “Crackpot Index” inventor, Dr John Baez:

    “Maybe a branch of science is ripe for infection by pseudoscience whenever it stops making enough progress to satisfy the people in that field: as a substitute for real progress, they’ll be tempted to turn to fake progress. One could expect this tendency to be proportional to the loftiness of the goals the field has set for itself… and to the difficulty its practitioners have in switching to nearby fields that are making more progress.”

  5. Bert says:1st February 2011 at 3:09 amJamie

    After you have seen off the ‘warmists,’ and have put exposed the deceit of string theory, please could you set the record straight on the conspiracy that the earth revolves around the sun. Then could you prove that England’s third goal in the 1966 World Cup Final never actually crossed the line?
    What a hero you are.. What a man!

  6. Nige Cook says:1st February 2011 at 10:05 am“please could you set the record straight on the conspiracy that the earth revolves around the sun”

    Bert,

    It’s just a hoax that the sun is the centre of the universe. Einstein’s relativity says that there’s no preferred frame of reference: the laws of physics work for either a sun-centred universe or an earth-centred universe.

  7. Pingback: Climate change and the traditional skeptics: An opinion study « Shub Niggurath Climate

Comments are closed.

What BBC Radio 2’s Chris Evans Thinks about Global Warming

Looking down on Earth. . .

Chris Evans (CE) and Moira Stewart (MS) discuss Global Warming.

CE: So, listen, I watched ‘Science under Attack’ last night – this programme, the one presented by Sir Paul Nurse, the new president of the Royal Society. It was both excellent, it was bewildering at the same time – it was all about how scientists are failing to get new facts over, and suffering as a consequence. They’re sort of shouldering some of the blame themselves. Global Warming was the main vehicle used to portray his point: lots of people don’t believe it’s happening despite overwhelming data to suggest that it is. Why do so many hundreds of millions of people believe these very clever and dedicated people are lying? That’s very worrying, isn’t it? Don’t you think?

MS: Yeah, yeah, apparently they haven’t been, but they’re very well meaning and giving us findings…

CE: And you can tell.

MS: But, but, (I didn’t realise until far too late,) back in the Middle Ages, it was very, very warm and whatever. I thought that we peoples were freezing to death. Apparently Britain didn’t get that cold…what I’m trying to say is that there are cycles….

CS: Don’t beat yourself up about that, that you’ve only just cottoned on to the fact. The Earth has warmed and cooled, but the thing is, what they said is that it’s cooling at such an exponential rate now that that’s never happened before, and you know, some people don’t believe that maybe we’re contributing to this. But listen, science apart, right, if you light a fire, your living room warms up, doesn’t it? It’s not rocket science!

MS: Indeed, indeed.

CE: It has to be proven because so much is at stake. Scientists have to prove it for the benefit of the rest of us. But if you look at, you know….what was fascinating by the way, is that NASA spend £2m a year with their satellites looking back down to the Earth, so they send things off to space to try and ensure the future safety of Earth, because all these things back in space looking back down to Earth. But they spend £2m a year studying Global Warming, which I don’t think is that much. It’s so crucial – if you think: Wayne Rooney earns £5m a year. Right, the world spends a third of his wages a year on studying whether or not we’re frying ourselves.

MW: We don’t want to know.

CE: No, we don’t want to know. We’re sticking our head in the sand.

MS: But even in my lifetime, from childhood through to now […]when we were using coal and whatever else […]Britain for instance had a terrible atmosphere and it was…if you blew your nose you got black  out of your nostrils because of the fog etc…fog and the smog. And yet now we have cleaner air and a cleaner atmosphere, why aren’t we getting a cooler temperature?

END

Related posts:

  1. I’d rather stick my hand in a bag of amphetamine-injected rattlesnakes than put my trust in tonight’s BBC Panorama documentary on ‘Global Warming’
  2. Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!
  3. Millionaire Chris Huhne finds new ways to waste your money
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion

One thought on “What BBC Radio 2’s Chris Evans thinks about global warming”

  1. Nige Cook says:30th January 2011 at 11:34 pmChris Evans: “Global Warming was the main vehicle used to portray his point: lots of people don’t believe it’s happening despite overwhelming data to suggest that it is. Why do so many hundreds of millions of people believe these very clever and dedicated people are lying? That’s very worrying, isn’t it? Don’t you think? … The Earth has warmed and cooled, but the thing is, what they said is that it’s cooling at such an exponential rate now that that’s never happened before, and you know, some people don’t believe that maybe we’re contributing to this. But listen, science apart, right, if you light a fire, your living room warms up, doesn’t it? It’s not rocket science! … But they spend £2m a year studying Global Warming, which I don’t think is that much. It’s so crucial – if you think: Wayne Rooney earns £5m a year. Right, the world spends a third of his wages a year on studying whether or not we’re frying ourselves.”

    I don’t agree with Chris Evans. Science isn’t about money! I remember the first time I read a paper on global warming, which was one in Nature around 1980, from the noe-discredited climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia. This overturned the 1970s consensus that we were headed for an ice age. Volcanic dust was apparently causing global cooling in the 1970s. Then they switched to global warming due to the greenhouse effect.

    It’s exactly analogous, both in its contemporary chronology and in its groupthink mentality ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink , one thing Wikipedia DOES define well, for obvious reasons!) to string theory in particle physics!

    The roots of both theories go back to a few people, not taken seriously, in the 1960s. String theory and global warming first started to be taken seriously in the 1970s. String theory was reformulated from hadronic string theory in the 70s, and global warming received its first major publicity in 1975 from a founding conference organized by anthropologist Margaret Mead and 1950s RAND Corporation nuclear weapons fallout prediction expert Dr William Kellogg. Kellogg sank RAND Corp’s 1950s fallout prediction computer model by formulating it in terms of very wooden assumptions (a static mushroom cloud, with particles unaffected by the central updraft and the toroidal downdraft around the periphery), unlike the rival USNRDL “dynamic” or D-model of fallout, which allowed heavy particles to fallout while small ones were still rising.

    Kellogg’s wooden physics approach seemed to become embossed into the fabric of climate prediction models, including the notorious 1980s “nuclear winter” climate models, which neglected the prompt rainout of soot from firestorm precipitation such as occurred in Hiroshima. Paul Cruzen’s climate model of nuclear winter was put to the test courtesy of Saddam setting ablaze the oil wells in Kuwait in 1992, and failed miserably (as I’ve blogged in detail elsewhere).

    The thing that really proves to me that the earth’s climate is stable no matter how much CO2 we pump in is not theory but fact: the K-T event 65 million years ago. A 100 million megatons explosion due to an impact. The climatic effects failed to extinguish life on earth. The firestorms would have produce an enormous injection of CO2 as well as soot, and the impact crater in partially calcium carbonate rock would have produced direct CO2 from the reduction of that rock, but neither the “nuclear winter” not the subsequent global warming extinguished life. It’s pretty obvious that the oceans of this planet make the climate stable.

    If it gets too hot, the oceans heat up, evaporation increases, high altitude clouds form, and they reflect back sunlight and shade the surface more, compensating and regulating temperatures so that life survives.

    It is interesting that once you get outside groupthink “consensus science”, you find a complete shambles because the training of scientists doesn’t prepare them to work alone like Newton or Darwin on some revolutionary theory that others consider crackpot simply because it’s “unorthodox”. Scientific orthodoxy is full of bullshit doublethink, well illustrated in the Horizon “documentary” where Sir Paul emulates the hypocrisy of Dr Zaius in the 1968 Planet of the Apes. Dr Zaius is both Minister of Science and Chief Defender of the Faith. Any groupthink consensus masquerading as a science, such as the Royal Society, is going to be led by a Dr Zaius. It’s inevitable. In a sense, we have to have a grudging respect for Sir Paul in his determination not to shirk his responsibility in this matter.

Comments are closed.

If Ben Goldacre thinks I’m a ***** what does that make him? | James Delingpole

Ben’s a “true believer”Goldacre

Ben Goldacre says I’m a “penis.” He has told his 85,000 or so followers as much on Twitter. I’m also “absolutely a dick”, he goes on to tell his fan base, lest any of them doubt Ben’s commitment to the view that I am some kind of penile appendage.

And do you know what? I’m glad. I’m glad first because a “penis” isn’t such a bad thing to be called. Mine, certainly has kept me very happy over the years; possibly given pleasure to others; allowed me to pee in all sorts of exotic situations which might otherwise have proved tricky; and helped breed two beautiful children.

But the second reason I’m glad is because it gives me a chance to tell Ben something I’ve been meaning to tell him for ages: that though he’s a delightful guy and a massive talent, he’s also a moral and intellectual coward.

The reason I didn’t mention this before is because I think we’ve been observing a sort of unofficial truce. Ben and I met years ago at a Goldfrapp set years ago at Glastonbury. We were both pilled up, we both worshipped Goldfrapp and naturally we bonded instantly. Even though we probably haven’t spoken more than a couple of times since, I like to think (and it may be that Ben thinks differently) we have an affection for one another which transcends our ideological differences.

The biggest of those ideological differences has to do with Anthropogenic Global Warming. In a nutshell, I think it has been greatly exaggerated by a number of special interest groups with an axe to grind: scientists in pursuit of the trillions of dollars worth of funding; eco-charities who depend for their donations on scare stories; leftists using environmentalism to further an anti-capitalist agenda; deep greens who believe man is a blot on the landscape and that he should be punished through tax and regulation; governments and NGOs who see it as a way of raising taxes, increasing control, and being seen to be addressing popular concerns; cynical corporations who wish to “greenwash” their image or make easy money through taxpayer funded scams like wind farms; and so on.

This, essentially, is what this blog is about. I write about all sorts of other stuff too, as regular readers will know. But mainly I see myself as a combatant in an ideological war in which I’m fighting against the tyranny of Big Government and fighting for free markets, small government, openness, honesty and personal liberty.  One way I can do this, I believe, is by exposing the lies and inconsistencies of those who claim the case for AGW (and related eco-perils) is stronger than it actually is. And also by relaying such new pieces of scientific research in this field that sound interesting. None of this involves scientific research, for I am not a scientist and have never claimed to be. Nor does it involve lying or making stuff up because frankly there’s no need. Yes I am polemical, yes I can be abusive, but that’s because I think righteous rage is a useful weapon in a war where so much is at stake: ultimately the freedom for us all to live our lives as WE choose rather than as the fascistic control freaks of the environmental left would prefer us to live.

Goldacre, on the other hand, takes a rather different view. I don’t wish to caricature his position and I’m happy to make corrections where I’m wrong. But I believe he remains committed to the idea that the scientists informing the IPCC’s assessment reports are decent men of integrity; that the computer models showing that man made CO2 is contributing to significant and potentially catastrophic global warming are reliable; that the massive and hugely worldwide costly action being taken to deal with this threat is justified. Ben, in other words, is a true believer in Al Gore’s “consensus.”

Here though, is what puzzled me – and has for a long time about Goldacre’s work. He has put his scientific training as a doctor, and his loose, readable, acerbic, funny writing style to excellent use, first with a popular Guardian column, then with a bestselling book called Bad Science. Goldacre’s schtick is scepticism. He looks at the facts and the evidence behind the junk science that so often appears in newspapers and makes fools of the charlatans behind it. Among his targets, much to my delight, has been a successful nutritionist whom I have always loathed because when I met him he was unconscionably arrogant and rude to me. Many of Goldacre’s campaigns I support. I like and admire what he does. But where I don’t respect him one jot is in his views on ‘Climate Change,’ for they jar so very obviously with supposed stance of determined scepticism in the face of establishment lies.

Whether Goldacre chooses to ignore it or not, there are many, many hugely talented, intelligent men and women out there – from mining engineer turned Hockey-Stick-breaker Steve McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick to bloggers Donna LaFramboise and Jo Nova to physicist Richard Lindzen….and I really could go on and on – who have amassed a body of hugely powerful evidence to show that the AGW meme which has spread like a virus around the world these last 20 years is seriously flawed. And that, what’s more, there has been what amounts to a mass cover-up by most of the mainstream media – in the case of the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent for ideological reasons, in other cases through a mixture of ignorance, or “noble cause corruption.” This is empirical observable reality, grounded in much solid evidence. It is not something James Delingpole, rampant self-publicist made up to get a few extra hits on his tawdry blog. Even if James Delingpole were to stop ranting hysterically about these embarrassing truths they would not go away. They are here to stay and they are growing more apparent by the day. It’s something a man like Goldacre ought to be aware of and covering properly.

And this is what I mean when I talk of Goldacre’s intellectual and moral cowardice. It is certainly very true that the majority of his audience comprises left-leaning Guardian readers, predisposed to believe in the line – heavily promoted by the activist journalists who write for the Guardian’s environment pages – that AGW is a fact and that anyone who disputes it is evil. But stating something violently, aggressively and continuously – as the Guardian and its soulmates at the BBC and Independent do – doesn’t make it so. Nor does citing big names, like the Royal Society or NASA make something necessarily true either. This is a dishonest rhetorical technique known as the Argumentum ad Verecundiam: the appeal to authority.

There was a good example of the appeal to authority on TV last night. Some people may have seen it. It was a Horizon documentary in which a man named Sir Paul Nurse, by dint of the fact that he’d shared a Nobel prize in genetics, and that he was the new president of the Royal Society, was given carte blanche by the BBC to make several unproven assertions on climate change and global warming. One of them was to declare that the scientists exposed behaving badly in the Climategate emails were almost entirely innocent – just decent men getting on with their job. Another was to lend his weight to the idea that journalists and bloggers who have criticised these “Climate Scientists” are simply irresponsible “deniers” guilty of harassment and that they should be ashamed of themselves. Sir Paul will no doubt be delighted to hear that this message – which he helped promulgate in mob-stirring post in the Guardian’s environment pages – was angrily relayed back to me by many of his fans via poisonous emails today. The top bloke from the Royal Society essentially validated the view that Climate “deniers” are just ignorant, trouble-making scum. And his rentamob believed him.

But let’s return to Goldacre’s “penis” tweets. The reason he made them – credit where credit is due -was partly to point out to his fans that he thought the fuss over Nurse’s documentary had been somewhat exaggerated. Though talked up by the Guardian’s environment pages as if it represented the destruction of James Delingpole and everything he and his evil denier chums believed in, what it actually consisted off was this: Paul Nurse puts to Delingpole a slightly odd, unexpected analogy about Climate Change; Delingpole after an awkward pause says he doesn’t think much of the analogy; and, er, that’s about it.

Or, as Goldacre puts it in his tweets, relayed during the programme (H/T Bishop Hill)

delingpole clearly a penis, and he’s citing it for wrong reasons, but “peer-to-peer” review is not an insane idea

god, i’m really sorry, i like Nurse, but this is kind of slow, feels like a bit of a duty watch.

[Delingpole] is absolutely a dick. but that was weak, and if it was their killer moment, makes the press activity of today a bit ugly tbh

well, sorry, delingpole didnt do brilliantly on a question, and fumbled, but they say they interviewed him for 3 hours. thats the killer mo?

if that was the killer delingpole moment that the bbc have been crowing about all day then i’m actually quite unimpressed

I’m grateful for Ben’s honesty in this regard. But I think to cover his back and show he was “down with the kids” by calling me a “penis” was symptomatic of the moral cowardice I find in his writings on Climate Change generally.

Taking the standard BBC/Guardian/Independent line on AGW (and related eco-threats) is a very safe thing to do if your target audience is young and hip and instinctively green/liberal-left. It requires no effort, no thought, and certainly no courage.

If  Goldacre really wants to stick his neck out, why doesn’t he try arguing against a rich, powerful, bullying Climate-Change establishment which includes all three British main political parties, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the Prince of Wales, the Prime Minister, the President of the USA, the EU, the UN, most schools and universities, the BBC, most of the print media, the Australian Government, the New Zealand Government, CNBC, ABC, the New York Times, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, most of the rest of the City, the wind farm industry, all the Big Oil companies, any number of rich charitable foundations, the Church of England and so on?

I do, almost every day. Not because it makes me money or gets me lots of high-fives from right-on Guardian fans. But because I believe in the truth.

Related posts:

  1. The problem with God is He thinks He’s Bob Geldof
  2. What BBC Radio 2’s Chris Evans thinks about global warming
  3. Does even Ian McEwan know what Ian McEwan really thinks about ‘Climate Change’?
  4. What exactly has the world ever done for Britain?

38 thoughts on “If Ben Goldacre thinks I’m a ***** what does that make him?”

  1. Stuart Naylor says:26th January 2011 at 8:27 amAfter the horizon program I am so happy, as it was enough for my long term Telegraph parents to switch papers. No more Telegraph and now a Guardian house.
    Keep it up James your doing a brilliant job.

    PS Ben Goldacre is just so right, I think its the shape of your head.

  2. Don Stuart says:26th January 2011 at 10:15 amStuart, when you grow up and become a big boy wearing long trousers you will look with disdain at your Grauniad and switch to the Telegraph.
  3. John Sturman says:26th January 2011 at 4:49 pmBen is spot on. James – leave true science to those that really understand it, keep quiet in your armchair and don’t be so naive to believe the tiny minority of mostly self interested economists and non specialist ‘scientists’ who try to tease out minor bits and pieces of research/statistics to refute the anthropogenic contribution to global warming. The OVERWHELMING body of global scientific research supports anthropogenic global warming. You are arguing that they are ALL wrong! The cost of doing nothing is MUCH greater than the cost of reducing man’s impact. You are also quite literally playing with peoples lives as the increasing regularity of extreme weather events brought on by global warming will kill people. Sadly, you seem the kind of person who can sleep soundly at night with this on your conscience. You may also have lost the future respect of your children as it is they who will suffer the majority of the consequences should we fail to act now.
  4. Owen Kirton says:26th January 2011 at 6:26 pmJames, I think that your response to Goldacres infantile name calling “sticks and stones will break my bones…….” was measured, fair and intelligent. I admire your patience and resilience in what must be constant attacks from the self righteous warmists. I am with you on everything you say on AGW and I urge you to continue saying it. It is only a matter of time. There are for more people with common sense than indoctrinated evangelists. We will prevail.
  5. Dom says:26th January 2011 at 10:13 pm“If Ben Goldacre thinks I’m a ***** what does that make him?”

    At the risk of stating the obvious… “correct”.

  6. Martin Lack says:26th January 2011 at 10:51 pmJames,

    As you have not responded to my email (submitted via your website “Contact me” page), I am forced to try this avenue to elicit a response… As you yourself admitted on the BBC’s Horizon programme this week, you are not a scientist; you are merely a self-appointed critic of science. Compared to this, even Tony Blair’s appointment as UN Middle East Peace Envoy seems sensible!

    Although it pains me to massage your ego in this way, I do feel you ought to take more responsibility to research facts (as they are) rather than just regurgitate disinformation (as the oil companies want you to)… Those who warn of serious environmental consequences for planet Earth if humankind does not radically change its ways are not trying to spoil anyone’s fun or freedom; they are merely pointing to the truth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. that energy cannot be created nor destroyed) and the reality of Entropy (i.e. that energy conversion leads to increasing disorder in the Universe).

    You and your kind could do a lot worse than start by reading “The Betrayal of Science and Reason – How Anti-scientific Rhetoric Threatens Our Future”, by Paul and Anna Ehrlich – see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Betrayal-Science-Reason-Anti-environmental-Threatens/dp/1559634847/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1296080071&sr=8-1#reader_1559634847

    Don’t worry; you don’t have to be a scientist to understand it!

  7. Nigel Kirkby says:27th January 2011 at 4:26 amIs that John Sturman as in Commercial Director at Bee Green Energy Ltd ?
  8. Martin Lack says:27th January 2011 at 11:05 amNigel Kikby: “Is that John Sturman as in Commercial Director at Bee Green Energy Ltd?” Even if it is, how about refuting arguments rather than making lame accusations of bias or vested interest (I think the oil companies are the really guitly party in that respect).

    I am no friend of the Catholic church but, when you find yourself arguing against them AND the scientific consensus (including bodies such as the Royal Society), it is time to re-think your position – or renew your subscription to the Flat Earth Society.

    The fact that climate change deniers cannot agree who to pin their consipracy theories on demonstrates how much they are like those who insisted the Earth is flat; then insisted it is only 6000 yrs old; then insisted that it is orbited by the Sun. In each case, their position eventually became untenable and had to be abandoned…

    Just how much climate change will it take to make you refusniks to come to your senses? John Sturman is absolutely right; I do not think your children will be at all proud of you.

  9. Nathan Perrin says:27th January 2011 at 1:47 pmWere you bullied at school, James?
  10. Chris P says:27th January 2011 at 4:31 pmJames just does this for the money. He sees the likes of Glen Beck, Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin making millions of dollars saying absolutely stupid shit that is totally wrong yet appeals the ignorant and gullible.

    It’s what the religious crazies do. He will never change because he can make money off this scam.

    He is to be despised for his negative contribution to people on this planet.

    Libertarians are like that. Selfish.

  11. London Calling says:27th January 2011 at 7:46 pmJust checking. Nothing of any significance to be found from the professional trolls who hover around JD’s excellent blog. Really, why do you bother (apart from for the money)?
    Myself, I couldn’t give a t0ss if there are 1,000 comments rubbishing Dellers. Do you think that’s how people make their mind up on issues – from troll-posts? What a waste of protoplasm you are Chris P.
  12. Groper says:28th January 2011 at 8:05 amBlogs are what they are? Nothing of scientific value can be found from a man who openly admits he doesn’t have time to read scientific literature yet feels he can ridicule scientists. But what can you expect from a libertarian denialist? Except to get “intellectually raped” when confronted.

    So next time Jimbo, stop believing what you write and try reading a little before you start debating. You might fair better than a lemming with its brain removed.

  13. dee says:28th January 2011 at 12:54 pmI’m a little confused.

    1. Do you have any time for AGW or not?

    This from your piece – “Anthropogenic Global Warming. In a nutshell, I think it has been greatly exaggerated by a number of special interest groups with an axe to grind” – would suggest that you do, but you’re saying is that certain groups and individuals are milking it for gain. Or do you really think that AGW is rubbish?

    2. Is it OK to appeal to authority on the issue of AGW?

    When Ben Goldacre and the chap on the Horizon prog do it, it’s questionable.
    When you do it in your article, to support your view that AGW is exaggerated, then it’s fine.

    An appeal to authority is fine if the authority is legitimate, of course. What makes your authorities OK and Ben and Nurse’s dodgy? The UEA lot are just a tiny number among thousands, and I don’t think their data can be written off entirely; how they presented it is the questionable aspect. It seems that some scientists are dumbing down their findings in order to make science more accessible to the public.

    I feel (because I don’t have any data to prove it) that AGW is exaggerated by some, because they benefit from doing so. It’s possible. People are like that. Equally, some may say that AGW is rubbish for the same reason.

    To suggest all the groups you mention in your article are lying, cheating and self-serving is a huge sweeping statement. Where’s the evidence? Your certainty worries me. Unfortunately, you look and sound too much like a ranting conspiracy theorist. It’s a shame, because we need a variety of intelligent, measured views from scientists and non-scientists. At least, I think so.

    Perhaps you just want to encourage debate. Well, you’ve done that, although there’s an awful lot of name calling on both sides, sadly. Must the argument be so polarised and adversarial? Do you think this approach will get to the truth?

  14. James Delingpole says:28th January 2011 at 1:10 pmDear Denise, thanks for your email but I don’t think you quite understand what “appeal to authority” means.

    As I thought I’d explained in my piece, it’s a rhetorical cheat whereby, for example, you say: “Well Sir Paul Nurse is a Nobel prize laureate and president of the Royal Academy and if he says it it must be true.” This was essentially the technique used throughout the documentary: he goes to NASA, is convinced by the glitziness of their equipment and the scienceyness of their credentials; he goes to the UEA and because Phil Jones is a fellow scientist, Nurse accepts on no evidence other than Jones’s say-so that his version of events is correct.

    Can you not see why this might not be damaging for the cause of truth and openness and scientific integrity?

    At what point do I cite anyone as an authority so superior it trumps other authorities? I don’t. All I’m asking is that when research is revealed to be flawed, the scientists defend themselves through open debate rather than bullying and cover ups and – yes – appeals to authority like the one we saw on Nurse’s disgraceful, dishonest hatchet job.

    How exactly is that unreasonable?

  15. Chris P says:28th January 2011 at 4:24 pmWhy should scientists defend themselves against a clueless journalist who can’t and won’t read graphs? Someone who is deliberately biased and confused about facts that are staring him in the face. You wouldn’t understand what they were saying if they tried to explainit to you. And, yes, science makes mistakes occasionally – that what science is all about.

    We don’t “debate” creationism because creationists do the same thing – they quote a stream of unsupportable garbage and expect the scientists to refute every clueless thing that comes out of their mouths. When the scientist refutes the first stupidity they come out with yet more crap.

    N0 – get your own freaking proof that global warming isn’t happening – collect your data give us graphs and explain how the atmosphere really works. With a libertarian brain like yours I’m sure you come out with something in ten seconds.

  16. Frank Tavos says:28th January 2011 at 9:27 pm@Chris P

    It’s clear that you haven’t the faintest idea of what the scientific method is. It’s up to the AGW alarmists, who are purporting to explain how earth’s climate works, to prove their theory. IT’S A THEORY. Get it? It hasn’t yet been proved. Read your Karl Popper.

  17. Seanos says:28th January 2011 at 11:06 pmYou agreed to go on the telly to talk about how science works with the President of the Royal Society and Nobel Laureate Sir Paul Nurse and it turns out he knows more about it than you.

    So you look a bit silly in the programme and then you complain that you’ve been stitched up.

    Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

  18. James Wilks says:29th January 2011 at 5:42 pmThe sad thing about this situation Mr Delingpole is you just don’t get it, do you? if Ben Goldacre and Simon Singh say its right, it simply must be right by virtue of the fact they have said it is, forget evidence. This reflects to my mind a stance, which seems to be simply one of intolerance to any other opinions, views or even an acceptance that we have an ability to analyse and in fact rationalise any information on our own. We must agree or be ‘punished’, which is a bit Orwellian I think. I get the impression that in the world of the Singhacre Skeptics, there is no place for disobedience by having an opinion that contradicts their own.

    I think the real reason of the abusive smokescreen is that they must attack loudly and vehemently in a manner, which will hopefully prevent fair-minded people seeing that they are as fallible as the rest of us. I remember reading on a blog once where a guy was advised to be wary of anyone who claims to have all the answers, as they are either ignorant, arrogant or stupid, either way it was alluded that these people were dangerous to themselves or others. Does that apply here, who knows?

    PS, I have never read the Telegraph as until lately I had always taken the Guardian, but I must say having read some of the nonsense that’s been published lately, its time for a change. You have a new reader!

  19. Nige Cook says:29th January 2011 at 7:14 pm“… wisdom itself cannot flourish, and even the truth not be established, without the give and take of debate and criticism. The facts, the relevant facts … are fundamental to an understanding of the issue of policy.”

    – J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1950

    “Fascism is not a doctrinal creed; it is a way of behaving towards your fellow man. What, then, are the tell-tale hallmarks of this horrible attitude? Paranoid control-freakery; an obsessional hatred of any criticism or contradiction; the lust to character-assassinate anyone even suspected of it; a compulsion to control or at least manipulate the media … the majority of the rank and file prefer to face the wall while the jack-booted gentlemen ride by.”

    – Frederick Forsyth, 2005

  20. Nige Cook says:29th January 2011 at 7:16 pmI’ve just revised my video about the trifling little flaws in Sir Paul’s Horizon documentary:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=3Un7u2AZnjw&vq=medium

  21. Chris P says:30th January 2011 at 1:21 amFrank Tavos is clueless about science. Theory has two meanings – in the “theory” of evolution it means the consensus facts that are true.

    You people are just as clueless as creationists – you use the same old twisted words game.

  22. Nige Cook says:30th January 2011 at 12:55 pm“Theory has two meanings – in the “theory” of evolution it means the consensus facts that are true.” – Chris P.

    “What is truth?” – Pilate.

    Chris, did you copy that straight from Orwell’s “1984”? Doublethink is: “to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies … knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it … to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.”

  23. Seanos says:30th January 2011 at 4:45 pmNigecook

    Thanks for the definition of ‘doublethink’. Here’s the definition of ‘scientic theory’, which is indeed different to the definition of ‘theory’ which is in general useage:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

    Frank Tavos is indeed clueless about science, as are you. Did neither of you stop to consider that you might not know what you were talking about before wading in?

  24. Nige Cook says:30th January 2011 at 10:51 pm“A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

    Seanos, Wikipedia is itself a consensus effort. Did it not occur to you that a consensus effort would be likely to produce a definition of science that is biased in favour of consensus?

    It fails to distinguish between the political abuse of “science” by authority which deliberately ignores, covers up or otherwise (perhaps using “peer-review”) renders effectively secret vital facts (“hide the decline”) and a theory which considers all of the evidence. It fails to cover the problem of anomalies. The definition of scientific theory is actually a big discipline all of its own, running from Occam’s Razor to Susskind’s fairies.

    The definition of a scientific theory as one which is “useful” to the scientists crops in in superstring theory, where it’s useful to investigate a 10/11 dimensional M-theory theory with its 10^500 different metastable vacua, since it’s impossible to experimentally disprove them all during your career.

    Like climate theory, superstring theory is here “useful” not in the experimental sense, but in the political sense. Ivor Catt makes the cynical-sounding but all too true observation that groupthink science is very easily corrupted, because scientists don’t live on air.

    ‘The President put his name on the plaque Armstrong and Aldrin left on the moon and he telephoned them while they were there, but he cut America’s space budget to the smallest total since John Glenn orbited the Earth. The Vice-President says on to Mars by 1985, but we won’t make it by “stretching out” our effort. Perhaps NASA was too successful with Apollo. It violated the “Catt Concept”, enunciated by Britisher Ivor Catt. According to Catt, the most secure project is the unsuccessful one, because it lasts the longest.’

    – Robert P. Crossley, Editorial, Popular Mechanics, Vol. 133, No. 5, May 1970, p. 14.

    E.g., compare the Apollo project with the Vietnam war for price, length and success. Both were initially backed by Kennedy and Johnson as challenges to Communist space technology and subversion, respectively. The Vietnam war – the unsuccessful project – sucked in the cash for longer, which closed down the successful space exploration project!

    Scientist even in pure science have to ensure that whatever they do will not result in a P45. If that means building a theory that’s complete rubbish by the use of so-called “peer-review” as censorship of critics, then they’ll do it to survive, just as when the chips go down most people will fight for survival. Ethics are important, but they come lower down the Maslow’s list of human priorities than putting bread on the table!

  25. Seanos says:30th January 2011 at 11:24 pm“Seanos, Wikipedia is itself a consensus effort. Did it not occur to you that a consensus effort would be likely to produce a definition of science that is biased in favour of consensus?”

    Logic and comprehension aren’t your strong suit are they? The wiki article is a perfectly simple and straightforward explanation of what a scientific theory is. Here, read these:

    http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
    http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm
    http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/scientific_theory.htm

    So we’ve now established that scientists use the word ‘theory’ in a very specific way and this is different to its collquial use, can we agree that no ‘doublethink’ is involved and that making posts without having any real understanding of what you are talking about is a spectacularly idiotic thing to do?

    I skimmed through the rest of your post because it looked like bullshit. If you actually have a point could you please try and make it succinctly?

  26. Nige Cook says:31st January 2011 at 8:52 amSeanos,

    ‘Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.’ – R. P. Feynman (quoted by Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, 2006, p. 307).

    “Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. It is a second potential negative consequence of group cohesion.

    Irving Janis studied a number of American Foreign policy ‘disasters’ such as failure to anticipate the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1941); the Bay of Pigs fiasco (1961) when the US administration sought to overthrow Cuban Government of Fidel Castro; and the prosecution of the Vietnam War (1964–67) by President Lyndon Johnson. He concluded that in each of these cases, the decisions were made largely due to the cohesive nature of the committees which made them. Moreover, that cohesiveness prevented contradictory views from being expressed and subsequently evaluated. As defined by Janis, “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action”.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink (your beloved consensus-based wikipedia is EXCELLENT when it defines groupthink, which is consensus).

  27. Seanos says:31st January 2011 at 8:49 pmIf I were you Nige I’d have a long lie down.
  28. Frank Tavos says:31st January 2011 at 10:07 pm…and if I were you Seanos, I’d fuck off.
  29. Tim says:1st February 2011 at 8:38 amhttp://uk.linkedin.com/pub/stuart-naylor/19/a3a/4a0
    Seems the trolls here all have a vested interest in fleecing the taxpayer
  30. Seanos says:1st February 2011 at 10:50 am…and if I were you Frank, I’d learn what scientists mean when they use the word ‘theory’ before spouting off about in public, to avoid coming across as someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
  31. Bernie says:1st February 2011 at 8:47 pmThe only proper response that I can think of is that it’s time for you to call the guy a doo-doo head. Let’s this debate onto a higher plane.
  32. Frank Tavos says:1st February 2011 at 10:08 pm@Seanos I’d have to try a lot harder to come across as ignorant and idiotic , yet pompous and full of himself, as you do. Thanks for the advice, Mr. Science!
  33. DaveDude says:2nd February 2011 at 4:39 amFrank, try and understand, Einstein’s theory of relativity is just a theory, but it goes a long way in explaining the world of the large. Quantum theory is just a theory, but it goes a long way in explaining the world of the very small. Darwin’s theory of evolution is just a theory, but it goes a long way in explaining the creatures we see today. Just as AGW theory goes a long way in explaning greenhouse gases and climate. Scientists like explaining the world in theories, but it doesn’t mean it’s all wrong. So get your science right before debating.
  34. Nige Cook says:2nd February 2011 at 2:27 pmDaveDude, the “greenhouse” analogy is false! When did you last see a “greenhouse” which had sunlight-reflecting clouds in it, formed by the evaporation of an ocean that covered 70% of its surface?
  35. Frank Tavos says:2nd February 2011 at 7:50 pm@ DaveDude. Alright, already! I meant “AGW hypothesis”, not “theory”. Enough with the semantics. The point I was originally trying to make way up above is that it’s up to those claiming that the hypothesis is supported by sufficient empirical evidence to demonstrate its predictive value.

    In the case of AGW, the “evidence” has been demonstrated to have been either falsified or massaged or cherry-picked in such a way that no rational person would trust it. Not only that (and this relates to my Jan 28 admonition to Chris P to “Read your Karl Popper.”) but the AGW hypothesis is a moving target. Every time the evidentiary basis of AGW is knocked out from under it, its proponents simply change the name (e.g.: “Global Warming” becomes “Climate Change”) or the predicted effects of AGW (“the earth’s temperature will rise by X degrees” becomes “the earth’s temperature will maybe rise or fall by X degrees”). If it can’t be disproven or if it purports to explain everything that occurs, regardless of what happens, it is what is known as pseudo-science. AGW is no different than dialectic materialism (a.k.a. Marxism) or astrology, or even Christianity. It can’t be disproven because it does not adhere to the scientific paradigm.

    So, no, AGW does not go “a long way in explaning greenhouse gases and climate”. It may go part of the way to saying that earth’s climate is changing, but so what? That’s no surprise. The very nature of climate is that it never stays the same. It is in constant flux as a perfunctiory examination of climate history tells us. But the most important thing that theAGW hypothesis fails to to do is demonstrate a link between human-produced CO2 and climate change.

    So what it has become is a convenient tool for governments to justify to the gullible, the ignorant and the lazy their attempts to wield more power and take away human freedoms. I don’t know why any sane and rational person would chose to believe the AGW hypothesis unless they have somnething to gain from it; be it grant money or control over the levers of society and the economy or support for their socialist world view. Which one are you DaveDude?

  36. Nige Cook says:2nd February 2011 at 8:39 pm“The very nature of climate is that it never stays the same. It is in constant flux as a perfunctory examination of climate history tells us.” – Frank Tavos

    Spot on! We’ve been in a warming period for 18,000 years. The whole holocene, during which humanity thrived, has been a period of climatic change.

    Much of the Sahara desert was a tropical paradise a few thousand years ago, and it wasn’t destroyed by humanity. The last ice age is still receding. What the natural climate change deniers insist, by lying, is that the climate is a delicate equilibrium, critically controlled by CO2 levels. In fact, the relative influence of H2O, plain old water vapour, is a bigger greenhouse gas.

    However, as always, the eco-evangelists misunderstand this, claiming it has a positive feedback on CO2, e.g. see http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm where James Frank on 2 September 2010 falsely claimed:

    “Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.”

    This is what the IPCC computer models say, and is precisely why they’re wrong.

    I blogged about the error over a year ago, http://nige.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/how-natural-climatic-changes-are-lyingly-covered-up-by-doom-mongering-lying-propaganda-to-secure-research-grants-for-crackpots-with-a-political-agenda-an-analogy-to-string-theorists-spin-2-graviton-p/

    Summary: NASA scientist contractor Dr Ferenc Miskolczi of AS&M Inc on 1 January 2006 resigned with a protest letter about being censored out, stating:

    “Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science can not coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climatic change related scientific results. … I presented to NASA a new view of greenhouse theory and pointed out serious errors in the classical approach of assessment of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas perturbations. Since then my results were not released for publication.”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/25310277/Dr-Miskolczi-Resignation-Letter

    His theory is described by his research associate Dr Miklos Zagoni, see the paper http://www.scribd.com/doc/25071473/Saturated-Greenhouse-Effect-Theory

    NASA effectively banned its publication through the peer-reviewed literature, just as it had used groupthink fear to censor out the effects of low temperatures on making the rubber Challenger O-rings brittle, so they leaked during a cold morning launch, causing the 1986 space shuttle explosion. (This was the big cover-up that Feynman famously exposed with the cup of iced water and a rubber O-ring during a TV news conference, as part of the Rogers’ Commission report into the disaster, which NASA astronaut Niel Armstrong failed to spot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report .)

    Basically, Dr Ferenc Miskolczi’s life as a NASA climate research scientist was made hell because he discovered that the extra water vapour being evaporated is not having a positive-feedback (increasing the CO2 warming effect by absorbing more infrared from the sun), instead it is going into increased cloud cover, which reflects incoming sunlight back to space. So it has a negative-feedback effect, not a positive-feedback effect. NASA’s climate computer models all have not merely a quantitative error in the effect of H2O on climate, but an actual qualitative error. They have a plus sign where the sign is really negative.

    Dr Miskolczi’s evidence is that, as stated on page 4 of Dr Miklos Zagoni’s paper http://www.scribd.com/doc/25071473/Saturated-Greenhouse-Effect-Theory , “During the 61-year period [since 1948] … the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent.”

    That shocked me, and made me really angry that nobody is reporting this in the media, and just coming up with straw-man “sunspot” stuff (no offense to Lord Monkton, but that’s astrology).

    “Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.” – Dr. Miklos Zagoni.

    The only media report on this scandal is a terribly written story by Dianna Cotter of
    Portland Civil Rights Examiner, “Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earth’s Climate”, 12 January 2010, see http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/hungarian-physicist-dr-ferenc-miskolczi-proves-co2-emissions-irrelevant-earth-s-climate

  37. Seanos says:2nd February 2011 at 11:26 pmActually Frank you old charmer, I think I will fuck off.

    Being exhorted to read Popper by a man who doesn’t understand what a scientific theory is surely has to be the comedy high point and things can only go downhill from here, so I’ll leave you little Einsteins to it. Adios!

  38. Frank Tavos says:3rd February 2011 at 6:38 pm@Seanos – You’re right, things would go downhill from here for you – because I just obliterated your side’s weak arguments with my last post. You realized that you had absolutely no chance of refuting my argument, so you gave up. Good for you. I like a person who knows when he/she has been soundly beaten. Adios, loser.

Comments are closed.

Royal Society: doh! | James Delingpole

October 15, 2010

homer

Of the many pseudoscientific institutions responsible for pushing the pseudoscientific fraud of Man Made Global Warming in recent years, few have been quite so assiduous in promulgating the great lie as our own Royal Society. (H/T John O’Sullivan at Suite 101)

“Pseudoscientific” may seem a bit of a harsh charge to lay at the door of the reverend body founded in 1660 whose alumni include such distinguished figures as Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Hans Sloane, Sir Joseph Banks and leading palaeopiezometrist Bob Ward. The problem is, in the latter part of the last century and the first bit of this one, it managed to urinate three centuries’ worth of credibility and rigour up against the wall by deciding to abandon all objectivity and act as cheerleader for the Man Made Global Warming lobby.

The three men largely to blame for this were its fanatically warmist presidents Lord Rees and Lord May, together with the even more dismal Sir John Houghton, who was partly responsible for perhaps the most embarrassing document in the institution’s history: the one called Facts And Fictions About Climate Change.

This 2005 propaganda exercise rode a coach and horses through the Royal Society’s traditions of non-partisanship. As Nigel Calder has pointed out, for two centuries the following advertisement was printed in its house journal Philosophical Transactions:

… it is an established rule of the Society, to which they will always
adhere, never to give their opinion, as a Body, upon any subject,
either of Nature or Art, that comes before them.

But perhaps more importantly it was hopelessly inaccurate, which is why, following a rebellion by some of its members, the Royal Society last month issued a revised guide to Climate Change.

However, this one is apparently wrong too. According to German chemist Dr Klaus Kaiser, the new document grossly exaggerates the amount of time the deadly, devil gas they call CARBON DIOXIDE (mwa ha ha ha!) spends in the atmosphere.

Here’s what the Royal Society claims:

“Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations”

But Dr Kaiser says this is rubbish, for reasons he explains at length in Canada Free Press.

It is also obvious then that the statement by the Royal Society that it would take “millennia” for atmospheric CO2 to return to levels at preindustrial times upon a (theoretical) complete and sudden cessation of all manmade CO2 release to the atmosphere cannot be true. If the CO2 were to stay in the atmosphere for millennia, why has its level in the atmosphere not doubled in the last 15 years, or gone up tenfold-plus over the last 100 hundred years? Furthermore, there are several peer-reviewed papers reporting the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere to be between 5 and 10 years. A half life of 5 years means that more than 98% of a substance will disappear in a time span of 30 years.

He has the support of Swedish maths professor Claes Johnson, who has written scathingly before of what he calls the “Royal Society in Free Fall”.

This is not science which has been shown to be correct, but populistic science selling “truths” which serve a certain political agenda.

The Royal Society’s next president will be the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse. He has got his work cut out, I’d say.

Related posts:

  1. The Royal Society: too little, too late
  2. Global warming fraud: the tide begins to turn
  3. The case against Dr Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones
  4. US physics professor: ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’

2 thoughts on “Royal Society: doh!”

  1. Ian says:16th October 2010 at 10:58 amJames Old Boy, I think the greatest pseudoscientific scandal of recent history isn’t the great global warming scam, but the holocaust. The cost to us all in general, and to many countries and corporations and banks in particular, ever since has been in the trillions. The global warming scam will run it a close second though.
  2. JazzRoc says:22nd October 2010 at 4:52 pmThe most telling argument for global warming is EVIDENCE like the following:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4
    This is something you may try for yourself.
    You’ll see the immediate and measure-for-measure warming taking place in the bottle containing MORE carbon dioxide. This is a reaction which takes place across the Universe: shine EM radiation through carbon dioxide gas, and it will ABSORB it and RE-EMIT it.
    It may be argued that producing more CO2 will increase its natural absorption (it does) but that doesn’t mean that the heating effect is REDUCED; only that the rate of heating is reduced.
    So we are uncovering fossil carbon and burning it, increasing its proportion of the atmosphere day-by-day, having TRIPLED it in historical times.
    When you remove natural cycles from the Earth’s temperature history, lo-and-behold, you get an exact MATCH in the last three centuries to Man’s fossil fuel use and the proportion of atmospheric carbon dioxide: the “hockeystick”.
    Now it seems to me that THAT is EVIDENCE of ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING, and no amount of arguing (the power of big bucks, the “corruption” of scientists, etc., etc.) makes the slightest difference to the TRUTH: the Earth is getting hotter because we are burning fossil fuels.
    Faced with the SURE knowledge that there are SERIOUS TIPPING POINTS like POLAR ALBEDO and temperature-released methane from the tundras and ocean clathrates, the posture AGAINST man-made global warming seems downright irresponsible to me.
    What’s the motivation behind the denial of this evidence? What can POSSIBLY make one take a stand AGAINST reason and logic?