Channel 4 Now Ashamed of its Experts
After a DeSmogBlog post yesterday complained about academic misrepresentation in the promotional material for a UK television show (The Great Global Warming Swindle), Channel 4 went back into its website and removed all reference to the "experts" that it plans to quote in the program, due to air March 8 at 9 .m.
That would be good news if Channel 4 also planned to remove the offending climate change deniers - people like Dr. Tim Ball - from the show itself, but that seems more than unlikely.
Accordingly, the DeSmogBlog is distributing this press release, and is asking Channel 4 for a list of scientists (with their credentials) so that any fossil fuel interests can be exposed before the show goes to air. The text of the press release is as follows.
Even before the show goes to air (March 8, 9 p.m.), Channel 4’s “The Great Global Warming Swindle ” leaves the truth in the gutter.
In its promotional material, Channel 4 was advertising one of its experts, Dr. Tim Ball, as a “Climatologist and Prof Emeritus of Geography at the University of Winnipeg.” In fact, Dr. Ball retired from a short, unspectacular academic career in 1995. He neither earned – nor was he given – the honour of an Emeritus professorship, and the University of Winnipeg has, on at least one previous occasion, specifically requested that he stop presenting himself as such.Far from being a working scientist or credible expert, Dr. Ball has associated himself in the last decade with a series of energy industry front groups (the Friends of Science, the Natural Resource Stewardship Project ) that fight against any policy that would address climate change.
Even the Calgary Herald, the leading newspaper in the Canadian oil capital of Calgary, has said that Ball is “viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”
When Ball’s credentials were questioned on the Canadian climate change website DeSmogBlog.com, Channel 4 removed the reference to Ball and removed the names of all the other scientists from its promotional website. But the locations that Channel 4 still mentions suggest that the other “experts” will include at least a cross-section of other people who are known more for taking money from the energy industry than they are for scientific research. For example, the reference to Virginia suggests that Channel 4 plans to quote Pat Michaels, who is on record as having been paid by a coalition of U.S. coal-fired electrical utilities to “stand up to the alarmists and bring balance to the discussion.”
Channel 4’s experts look less like scientists than like PR people who work on behalf of fossil fuel companies.If that isn’t the case, we challenge Channel 4 to produce a list of its experts, with their credentials, so viewers may know whose interests are being represented before sitting down to the watch the show.
healthy smoke and spoons
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/travels/travels_books.shtml
Interviewer: What is your take on your views then, in todays world? Such as talking to plants, seeing/healing/ cleansing auras, spoon bending.... I respect your work so much but, I guess one needs to experience spoon bending himself to believe it!
Crichton: No, I have not continued that interest very much, but I tend to drop a topic once I finish a book. I felt satisfied with what I had learned. My mind hasn't changed, in the years since.
Of all the things I wrote about, spoon bending seems to stick in the rationalist throat. It just bugs people. I don't know why.
I don't know why spoon-bending occurs. I have no explanation. I can't describe it any better than I did in the book. But I have no doubt that it occurs. ...
Aliens cause global warming
Dan, I believe that Crichton first mentions his views on scientific consensus in a talk "Aliens cause global warming" which he presented at the California Institute of Technology in January 2003.
Of course, most of what he characterized as "scientific consensus" was nothing of the sort but was more a status quo view not backed up by science. You know the "we've always done it this way and whatever you say won't make us change our minds" approach. It was science and scientific consensus that eventually changed peoples' views on these subjects.
I'm afraid that Michael Crichton is not some one I would go to to find answers to scientific problems.
Crichton on consensus
"State of Fear" is FICTION!
"State of Fear" is FICTION! Get over it!
Great Global Warming Swindle doesn't hold up to much scrutiny
Thanks to channel 4 and the
On CNN tonight
Durkin has a history of distortion
I tried to post this a couple of days ago but it got caught in the Spam Filter. My apologies if it gets double posted.
Martin Durkin, director of the programme has a long history of deception and distortion in his struggle to show that environmentalists are causing bigger problems to mankind than the Nazis. Here is one of his quotes "....which targeted environmentalists, presenting them as 'the new enemy of science' and as comparable to the Nazis".
He has had a longstanding relationship with the Revolutionary Communist Party that morphed into Living Marxism.
A summary of his programmes and methods can be found at:
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39
Channel Four had to broadcast a prime-time apology after Against Nature (Durkin's first programme) drew the wrath of the Independent Television Commission which ruled, 'Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them... as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.'
Just another typical day in the life of an AGW denier.
Bigger Worries
The deniers grow more shrill
PR People ...
Great post
Adding a comment to a long gone discussion, but I could not resist it and who knows someone may revisit this thread....
You are so spot on - a group of PR people and journalists who don't have a scientific credential between them pronouncing on GW as if 'they' have the truth. (I scanned through their bio's hoping for at least some scientific education, but like Gore they have none - as an aside it should be pointed out that Gore got an F for the one science course he did do. I kid you not.)
I bet they wouldn't know a computer model if it bit them in the ass - and as for statistics - at university I found most BA'ers completely unaware of even the common and garden Bell curve. Mathematical analysis and unemotional scientific thinking phased them. Suspect this crowd is the same
I also have a science background, but would never presume myself qualified to validate or otherwise Tim Ball et. al. and GW in general.
Not these folk: clearly they never let ignorance stand in the way of a good self righteous argument.
PS. Did you see somewhere on this site they say they want to remove 'spin'. This from professional spinmeisters. One of the funniest sites I've come across for quite a while
Science is about honesty
The reason Ball, Michaels, Singer et al. get taken to task is not because they are "science people" or "PR people" but because they distort the truth. Now this is accepted in some circles, e.g. politics, law, some PR people but it is just not acceptable in science.
Science is all about understanding the truth about how complex systems (molecules, galaxies, species) function. To twist scientific findings to suit one's own personl agenda is just wrong.
Twisting the findings ...
Um... what about all the
A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005) ANYONE?
Must be some extremely odd coincidence all these graphs line up or they're all in the conspiracy together.
Odd that they never get mentioned the the denialists huh, bur more to the point, rather telling.
Other Papers ...
I want to point out that one
I want to point out that one paper does not make entire theory. The MBH paper is talked about as if it was the only supporting link to AGW or that it’s something that is gospel but that’s not how science works at all. Yes it was used in the IPCC report, but at the time little other published material existed on past climate reconstructions. If you go back even further the rather infamous, lack of y axis temp labels, poorly referenced, abstract climate reconstruction was used in the IPCC 1995 (date?) report, but was dropped as better information became available. And so it will be in the future as the understanding of things change. The science behind the climate phenomena will evolve as the understanding is increased, which is very unlike the religious dogma that people seem to wish to attach to any notion of AGW. I am all for it, when the research starts suggesting otherwise, I'll gladly accept better theories of explanation. Unfortunately there has not been significant explanation for the current warming by anything other than human related sources, though the effects of solar activity have been suggested by some legitimate researchers to have been under estimated, and even the IPCC 2001 report suggests more research is needed in solar forcing.
What really bothers me as a scientist, is the notion from so many people that 1 paper that suggests an underestimation of a forcing or lack of clear understanding, is an ha-ha see look you AGW worshipers are a church that refuses to bend. To make matters worse, most of the time its not even science that being used to support notions but articles from bogs, or people that are not even climate scientists, like Singer or Ball, or from think tanks, which are biased and unscientific at best. Its boggling, all legitimate scientific information must be considered as part of a greater whole. Which is unfortunately beyond the ability for so many people to grasp and why I suggest people actually read IPCC reports to understand why IPCC say what it does as it is an excellent summary of published research, from active scientists.
A large number of paleoclimate reconstructions have been conducted some showing greater levels of medieval warming other less, to very little.
Even Crowley and Lowery (2000), suggests that so called warming of the "medieval period" and cooling of the little ice age varied considerably in time in different regions. The notion that warming was global to the same degree is in serious doubt. The IPCC 2001, uses Crowley and Lowery (2000) in a number of sections, including
2.3.3 Was there a “Little Ice Age” and a “Medieval Warm
Period”?
12.3 Qualitative Comparison of Observed and Modelled Climate Change
2.3.4 Volcanic and Solar Effects in the Recent Record
Issues exist in past climate modeling for a number of reasons, due to the use of proxy information. Weight strength and type and location of the proxy influence the models that are generated and statistical analysis used. Hence why we see different graphs from a number of reconstructions. I would assume that they are accurate models for the most part, but none of them say without doubt this is exactly what the temperature was.
Either way though, paleoclimate models based on ice cores, tree rings etc give weight to a number of forcings that effect climate, like solar activity, greenhouse gas, and on etc. It is no surprise to anyone. What is more important however, is how climate models can predict current changes if differing locations, troposphere, stratosphere, ocean temps etc. While past climate reconstructions are never the less important for generating increased understanding of natural climate forcing, what is more important and critical is if the current models are explaining current changes. Based on the research I've seen I think they are, and to me it implies a significant AGW factor.
PS sorry for the long post
"The MBH paper is talked
as a scientist, you will know that science is about stuff that is replicable. I am sure you will share my distaste that it took a formal complaint to nature before MBH started to reveal their methodology, and a congressional inquiry before they revealed their full methodology. How can you replicate science if the authors hide what they did ?
A key issue here is that MBH is one of the first reconstruction papers to be audited- to see if it is replicable. The Wegman and NAS panel reports make clear that it is not a reliable piece of science, and that it has serious flaws. The NAS panel went further, and said that you could not quantify the uncertainty in any reconstructions prior to 1600.
as a scientist, I am sure you will appreciate what those words mean.
"To make matters worse, most of the time its not even science that being used to support notions but articles from bogs, or people that are not even climate scientists, like Singer or Ball, or from think tanks, which are biased and unscientific at best.
I have just given you the example of a blue-ribbon report by an NAS panel, and a report by one of the senior statistical experts in the USA. There are also the examples of the peer-reviewed papers by M&M; but I guess you weren't thinking about those minor details ?
per
It’s likely that since
It’s likely that since this tread is buried pages deep you won’t read my response but I thought to leave it none the less. My comments on the initial Mann reconstruction were simply to highlight its significance as one of the first major reconstructions beyond abstract graphs with statistical little information. Surely critically inquiry into any scientific work is an integral part of refining scientific theory on any phenonomia. While I do agree that a keystone in any scientific work is scrutiny and replicable results, the political direct attacks on Mann et al. are certainly something that should derive caution on the owners of said data. Though I don't know to what extent the data set has been shared, I would think that other reputable climate researchers (less hostile at least in the motivation sense) should be able to critically evaluate the research and use the data set.
I stand by my earlier comments that, as methodologies are improved and new and better models are generated scientific progress is made. All of the new reconstructions of paleoclimate that I have seen in the least show some degrees of warming and cooling though more modern history and there is a large degree of variation between models.
""What really bothers me as a scientist, is the notion from so many people that 1 paper that suggests an underestimation of a forcing or lack of clear understanding, is an ha-ha see look you AGW worshipers are a church that refuses to bend. To make matters worse, most of the time its not even science that being used to support notions but articles from bogs, or people that are not even climate scientists, like Singer or Ball,""
This comment was directed not at Mann et criticisms at all but more the cherry pick comments, but generally more in relation to meanderings of, "Warmer climate is good for us, cars don’t emit C02 anyway, or the medieval period was way warmer than it is now, or that the world is cooling since 1998, climate changed in the past there for we can't have an effect on it now" or similar comments in that type of grouping that get spouted around here with high frequency.
carl, I accept you are
" Though I don't know to what extent the data set has been shared, I would think that other reputable climate researchers (less hostile at least in the motivation sense) should be able to critically evaluate the research and use the data set."
Although MBH was published in '98, the methods and data set reported in the original was severely flawed. Data sets were reported used, that weren't; weren't mentioned, but were used; and data series were truncated, or padded out (when convenient), in a major way. The initial methods section was utterly inadequate to work out what they had done.
M&M originally asked (utterly politely; the correspondence is all on-line) for details from Mann, but when they asked questions about some errors in the stuff Mann provided, Mann refused to respond further.
It took a formal complaint to Nature, before MBH were forced by Nature into writing out their corrigendum in 2004. Even then, there were whole chunks of the methods which MBH didn't reveal; it was December 2004 when Mann revealed on realclimate that they had used a particular statistical test.
So far, no-one has published a replication of the MBH results (outside the MBH group). Wahl& Ammann approximate MBH, but their work is actually closer to the work of McIntyre & McKitrick; who published all their code freely on line.
"I stand by my earlier comments that, as methodologies are improved and new and better models are generated scientific progress is made."
sure; but sometimes you realise that a particular method just isn't good enough. I recommend you read the NAS panel report from last year.
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
In their summary, they state that you cannot quantify the uncertainty in reconstructions prior to 1600. That is very strong language.
per
One paper ...
PS sorry for the long
No apology should be necessary. Cherry picks are short and easy and the usual fallback among the denialists. Telling the whole story is hard work.
Good post.
"The 20th century and the
"The 20th century and the Medieval Warm Period (MWP; with maximum around 1000- 1100 AD) were two epochs with about similar temperature levels."
This may be true, but you must agree that the highest temperature in the MWP and the AVERAGE temperature in the 20th Century were similar. Since the first half of the 20th Century was fairly cool compared with the last three decades, it is fair to say that today's global temperature easily surpasses that of the MWP.
Also, who bloody cares about the temperatures during the MWP? These temperatures aren't affecting us today. The high rate of warming over the last few decades and the increasing warming into the future will greatly and negatively affect us. (There's no real benefit to future warming, unlike what Ball, Michaels, et al. say. They say this simply to make their masters happy.)
BCH, your comments have been showing a certain ideological blindness and inflexibility. You don't seem to understand science and you put your trust in scientists with few publications and distrust (even seem to slander, but that's another argument altogether) those with dozens of studies which have passed the peer-review test. You should take a scientific methods course so you can understand how it works.
Ideological Blindness ...
- The National Academy of Sciences
- Dr. Edward Wegman - Chair of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics
- James E. Hansen - Head of the NASA Institute for Space Studies
- Nir Shaviv - Associate Professor of Physics - Hebrew University of Jerusalem
- Realclimate
Quite a disreptuable lot really. I'll try to do better in future. Silly me. I didn't even know that science was about ideology!going backwards...
How 'bout we dispense with the high priests and actually make an effort to think for ourselves.
Thinking for ourselves is great, but how far do you have to go? Do we all have to go out and get degrees in climate science? Can we trust no-one but ourselves to make any decision? We wouldn't get very far if we did that.
Or do we use judgment to determine who the responsible voices are. I don't necessarily agree with everything he said, but to describe Nicholas Stern--a professional using transparent methods--as a High Priest is ridiculous and it's exactly the type of mindless, discussion-destroying obfuscation that the hardcore deniers love. Why don't we just describe, in advance, anyone who even thinks
of taking a position, as dangerous zealots?
Read the reports
Read the reports. Show me where Mann et al. have been shown to be manipulating the scientific facts. Both NAS reports showed their work to be scientifically accurate. They could have used a different statistical analysis protocol and the scarcity of data did not allow them to reach a normally accepted level of 95 % confidence in their 1000 AD conclusions. That in no way invalidates their results. Please read the reports before making slanderous accusations about reputable scientists.
To mention Mann et al. in the same sentence as Ball and Michaels is an insult to reputable scientists everywhere.
"They could have used a
The NAS and wegman reports both said that decentred PCA was wrong. They both said that you cannot accept MBH's data to have 95% confidence limits. That is a direct contradiction of MBH's statement of what their confidence limits were, and yes, it does totally invalidate their results.
The NAS panel went even further; it said you cannot even quantify the uncertainty in reconstructions prior to 1600. That's pretty strong.
per
Let's forget all about the statistics
Just looking at the raw data shows that there was only a slight increase in temps during the MWP. This is why the AGW deniers have spent so much time on trying to discredit Mann's work. Since they want to try and say that the warmth we are experiencing today has occurred within the last 1000 years. Before Mann's paper there were no data only figurative graphs showing high temps then that seemed to be the same as today. However, there were no data, no numbers (except for Tim Ball who decided to add some numbers to that graph which was scientifc fraud).
Now, I don't know and don't care if the confidence limits on the temps in the MWP are 94.5% or 65% or whatever, the temperatures back then were much lower than today. The whole statistical thing is a red herring.
If you have data to the contrary then please produce it. Otherwise Mann's and more recent graphs are all we have. The whole statistical arguments are nothing more than a smoke screen to try and discredit a scientist who showed that your ideas that global warming has happened in the recent (1000 years) past is just wrong. It is just not true, until you produce data which shows it, that temperatures back then were as warm or warmer than now.
"The whole statistical thing
I profess my astonishment that you actually made such a statement.
the reconstructions are based- all of them- from start to finish on statistical logic. Unless you are able to demonstrate something at >/= 95% likelihood, you have demonstrated nothing at all. You seem to have no comprehension of these elementary concepts.
"It is just not true, until you produce data which shows it, that temperatures back then were as warm or warmer than now."
The NAS panel makes clear that there are no reconstructions which we can rely upon, prior to 1600. We don't know whether temperatures back then were warmer, or cooler, than now; but that's only according to the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.
now, which should I believe ? The NAS- or Ian, who doesn't seem to understand the basics of statistics ?
"The whole statistical arguments are nothing more than a smoke screen to try and discredit a scientist..."
you don't seem to understand that MBH'98 relies upon statistics as the central part of the paper; and that the NAS and Wegman report say that they made fundamental errors.
per
MBH98
No. That doesn't help.
No. That doesn't help. These criticisms of the Wegman hearing help clear the air:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/followup-to-the-hockeystick-hearings/
Just trying to be helpful ...
Yes, I was. The Wahl and
Yes, I was. The Wahl and Ammann (2006) paper which has been cited many times on this website.
Wahl and Ammann ...
Except that it passed peer review
BCH said: "They were offering a defense of their own previous publications as well as Mann's. Hardly an impartial and independent confirmation."
Since these articles apper in the peer reviewed scientific literature others must have agreed. Or are you saying that it was "self-peer review"?
Self-Peer review ...
Wegman couldn't say that
BCH said (and unless you put quotation marks around something, you will be the one who said it): "I would never say such a thing ... Wegman did." Peer review is by its very definition anonymous. So how can Wegman know who reviewed those papers. You are the one running into a wall, full speed with your eyes closed.
I? said it ...
Wegman is not a "scientific" paper.
BCH, do you not understand the differnce between a scientific paper published in the peer reviewed scientific literature and a piece of political propaganda. Any idea how long it took Barton or Inhofe (can't remember which of those losers was responsible for commisioning the Wegman report) to find some one who would actually report what they wanted. That is not how real science works.
You can quote all you want from the Wegman report but it really means diddly squat to the scientifc community.
well, I for one am enjoying
"You can quote all you want from the Wegman report but it really means diddly squat to the scientifc community."
you seem to be ignoring the fact that Wegman is recognised as one of the nations pre-eminent statisticians by the NAS and government. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Gerry North, chair of the NAS panel, explicitly agreed with the statistical criticisms laid down by Wegman.
In case we are blinding you with science, the NAS is the National Academy of Sciences. It is the premier body of scientists in the USA. It is their panel who agree with the criticisms of Wegman, and who set out similar criticisms of MBH.
Maybe you are talking about a different scientific community. Maybe you are talking about the world-renowned community of Ian Forrester, statistician extraordinaire...
Strangely enought, you have been very shy about disclosing your expertise. Did you do statistics at University ? Do you have a doctorate ? Are you a practicing scientist ? Just wondering.
per
Are Per and BCH clones?
Since neither you nor BCH have the decency to identify your selves (are you frightened your employers may not like the ideas you are promoting?) I feel no need to answer any of your questions. The scientists who frequent this blog will be able to identify my level of expertise in this area and decide if what I am saying has merit or not.
Neither of you has offered any original comments or novel thoughts on the subject. All you do is cut and past from FOS and climatefraudit.
I just hope that neither of you are scientists since I hope integrity in science has not fallen that low.
What a cop out!
You're one to talk, Johan.
You're one to talk, Johan. Please at least disclose to us your last name. At least Ian gives his last name, leading most of us reasonable people to give him a bit more of our trust.
Ian, can you prove
If names make no differnce then....
OK Johan I Kanada, I've had enough of your games. You have driven me beyond where I wanted to go.
Since you say that names mean nothing to you then perhaps you could be Johan Harsta who works for ABB in Switzerland, after having worked for them in the US and Canada.
One of ABB's areas of endeavours is nuclear energy hence they believe that CO2 should be reduced. So you are not exactly toeing the corporate line are you JIK, or JH?
Of course you will no doubt deny it but that is now your problem.
I could be, I suppose
Beyond the point ...
Last names ...
"Since neither you nor BCH
there is also the embarrassing issue that you have said several things that are obviously wrong. You castigate M&M for a degrees/radians slip, without realising they are different people to McIntyre and McKitrick. You make comments about statistics that are false. You have made comments about the NAS and Wegman reports that are false. And you don't appear to realise that the NAS report comes with the imprimatur of the National Academy of Sciences.
"The scientists who frequent this blog will be able to identify my level of expertise in this area..."
???? If you are an expert in this area, why don't you tell us about it ? Why so very shy, hiding your light under a bushel ? And why is such an exalted expert making so many errors of fact ?
"I just hope that neither of you are scientists since I hope integrity in science has not fallen that low."
yet another ad hominem smear.
I don't suppose it occurs to you that scientists look at the facts, and then work our their beliefs; as opposed to working out their beliefs, and trying to organise the facts to suit. Why don't you read the NAS/ Wegman reports, work out what they are saying, and learn ?
per
PER & Me ...