Popular Technology
Peter Sinclair AKA “Greenman” a cartoonist and Al Gore disciple has been hard at work creating YouTube videos that smear skeptics and their arguments. The following is a complete rebuttal to his “Flogging the Scientists” video.
1. Sinclair claims that as a “non-scientist” he has found that the most “reliable” scientific information comes from “respected” peer-reviewed science journals. The problem with this statement is the use of subjective criteria. First he is admitting to be a “non-scientist” so why would anyone take his advice on where to find “reliable” scientific information or on what journals are more “respected”? Regardless what is considered “reliable” or “respected” is purely subjective and cannot be objectively determined. Now it is true that within the scientific community more scientific credibility is applied to “peer-reviewed” publications which is why skeptics have extensively published in peer-reviewed journals. Being peer-reviewed however does not mean something is a scientific truth, only that it has passed a certain level of scrutiny within the scientific community. There are documented cases of the corruption of this process,
(1) A Climatology Conspiracy? (David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Professor of Physics; John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science)
(2)Caspar and the Jesus paper (AT) (Andrew W. Montford, B.Sc. Chemistry)
(2) Circling the Bandwagons: My Adventures Correcting the IPCC (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
(3)The Double Standard in Environmental Science (PDF) (Stanley W. Trimble, Ph.D. Professor of Geography)
2. Sinclair then uses a strawman argument by comparing peer-reviewed journals to the conspiracy website InfoWars, the conservative news site WorldNetDaily and the UK’s conservative newspaper the Daily Mail. Despite these site’s excellent coverage of Climategate (even conspiracy sites get some things right) they are never confused by prominent skeptics with peer-reviewed journals.
3. In an attempt to attack the Daily Mail article, “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995” Sinclair uses an article from what he calls, the “conservative” Economist magazine. The problem is the Economist magazine is not conservative,
“...the Economist’s philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative” - Former Economist Editor Bill Emmott
This appears to be a failed attempt by Sinclair to pretend a conservative source agrees with his position.
4. Sinclair uses a quote from the original BBC interview with Phil Jones that actually makes the skeptics case,
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Phil Jones: Yes
This question originated with Dr. Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT who has been trying to make a point about the ridiculously small fractions of a degree in temperature change that are being debated. When standard error bars are applied to these, you are left with no statistically significant warming in 15 years. Without statistical significance you cannot rule out that any recent positive warming trend did not occur by chance or in this case, measurement error (below, enlarged here).
5. Sinclair then dishonestly implies that Dr. Lindzen is “denying” the mild warming trend over the last century which is blatantly not true,
“Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century,” - Dr. Richard Lindzen
6. Sinclair harps on a recently retracted paper on sea-level rise that for obvious reasons was widely discussed on skeptic websites prior to it’s retraction. The retraction he claims was based on the findings of a recent PNAS paper by Steven Rahmstorf who’s 2007 paper on the exact same subject in the journal Science was discredited,
- Comment on “A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise” (PDF) (Science, Volume 317, Number 5846, pp. 1866, September 2007)- Torben Schmith, Soren Johansen, Peter Thejll
“We revisit the application of the statistical methods used and show that estimation of the regression coefficient is not robust.” - Comment on “A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise” (PDF) (Science, Volume 317, Number 5846, pp. 1866, September 2007) - Simon Holgate, Svetlana Jevrejeva, Philip Woodworth, Simon Brewer
“Although we agree that there is considerable uncertainty in the prediction of future sea-level rise, this approach does not meaningfully contribute to quantifying that uncertainty.”
7. Sinclair then goes off promoting Al Gore like fear-mongering of over 6 ft of sea-level rise by the end of the century, ignoring both the IPCC and a recent review of the science in an article in the journal Nature,
“This issue was highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 assessment report. They concluded that ‘understanding of these effects is too limited ... to provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise’ in the twenty-first century. Excluding these effects, they projected a sea level rise of 0.26–0.59 metres [10-23 inches] by the 2090s for their highest-emissions scenario.
The available evidence still doesn’t allow us to say with certainty whether sea level rise could exceed the IPCC’s projections.
...Although increases of up to two metres this century can’t be ruled out, this does not mean that they are inevitable or even likely.” Other peer-reviewed papers show even less to worry about,
New Perspective on Global Warming & Sea Level Rise: Modest Future Rise with Reduced Threat (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 7, pp. 1067-1074, November 2009) - Madhav L. Khandekar
“It is concluded that the best guess value of Sea Level Rise for the next 100 years is a relatively modest 23 cm +/ - 5 cm [9 +/- 2 inches] which poses little threat to coastal areas of the world either at present or in future.”
8. Sinclair repeats the big lie that the Climategate emails do not undermine climate science. The significance of the emails and how they undermined the credibility of the climate science community and thus the science itself was exposed in a 2010 U.S. Senate report,
The CRU emails show scientists,
- Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
- Assuming activist roles to influence the political process
9. Sinclair lies that the South Dakota legislature passed a resolution urging schools not to teach the science of climate change, when the resolution says no such thing. It explicitly states that they recommend some points be included with the instruction of global warming. You can pause the video and read this for yourself. The wording of the resolution is also poor and it is fairly clear the legislature meant astronomical not astrological and geothermal not thermological. All the more reason politicians should consult scientists if they are not sure about scientific terminology.
10. Finally Sinclair lies about Marc Morano’s comment about public flogging when the website it was quoted from explicitly says, “He doesn’t wish anyone harm”. For someone who likes to use clips from Monty Python Sinclair sure has a hard time identifying sarcastic remarks from those he is trying to smear.
By Richard, EU Referendum
Following the release of over 1,000 e-mails and other material from the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU, the so-called Independent Climate Change Email Review, headed by Muir Russell, has concluded of the unit’s scientists that “their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”. Furthermore, the review found nothing in the e-mails to undermine IPCC reports.
So says Richard Black of the BBC and we are shocked, utterly shocked - that anyone could have thought that the review might have found otherwise. Its full 160-page report can be downloaded here, and you will immediately see what I mean.
Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said that the report was a “damning indictment of the university’s handling of freedom of information requests”. He added: “I don’t think the university can just claim that this is a vindication.”
Nor indeed can it. As Russell is quick to point out, “It is important to note that we offer no opinion on the validity of their scientific work. Such an outcome could only come through the normal processes of scientific debate and not from the examination of e-mails or from a series of interviews about conduct.”
Thus, as Peiser also observes, the “Climategate” issue would “not go away with this report”. He is right there. See post here.
-------------
Global Warming ‘ClimateGate’ Investigation Yields Whitewash Report
Statement by CEI Myron Ebell on “Muir Russell” Report
Washington, D.C., July 7, 2010 - In the wake of the recent, notorious “ClimateGate” scandal, the university at the epicenter of the scandal has exonerated its staff. Myron Ebell, CEI Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy, issued a statement condemning the report.
The Muir Russell report on the ClimateGate scandal does a highly professional job of concealment. It gives every appearance of addressing all the allegations that have been made since the ClimateGate e-mails and computer files from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Institute were released last November. However, the committee relied almost entirely on the testimony of those implicated in the scandal or those who have a vested interest in defending the establishment view of global warming. The critics of the CRU with the most expertise were not interviewed. It is easy to find for the accused if no prosecution witnesses are allowed to take the stand.
The Muir Russell report is thus a classic example of the establishment circling its wagons to defend itself. As was pointed out when the committee was appointed, the members are part of the old boys’ network and have several obvious conflicts of interest.
The professional whitewash attempted by the Muir Russell report will not succeed, however. That is because the evidence that data was manipulated by some of the scientists involved, for example to make the 1930s appear cooler in twentieth century temperature records, is simply too obvious and too strong to cover up.
---------------
Introductory paper on paradigm shift Should we change emphasis in greenhouse-effect research?
By Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D.
A paradigm is a set of scientific and metaphysical beliefs that provide a theoretical framework within which scientific theories can be tested. Replacement of an existing paradigm by another is called a paradigm shift. Most of the following papers in this issue argue that an alternative paradigm is needed for the functioning of the so-called greenhouse effect of the Earth and hence for the explanation of observed climatic change. Some others contest it.
The observed coincidence between global warming and rise of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century - more accurately measured over the last 30 years of it - need not indicate a causal relationship, and it certainly need not give rise to global catastrophe. An assumed correlation is based on the expectation that the infrared radiation from CO2 contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect of the Earth. However, irregularities in the trends raise doubts of such a simple causal relationship and, at least, considerable doubt about the magnitude of such an expected effect. See more here.
By Russell Cook
Meteorologist blogger Anthony Watts normally talks about the crumbling science of man-caused global warming, but recently described an uninvited office guest demanding to know about his alleged “big oil funding.” The charge that only the lure of big money causes people to question warmist gospel is old, but, turns out, of highly questionable origin.
Al Gore typifies the central accusation in An Inconvenient Truth, pg 263:
The misconception that there is a serious disagreement among scientists about global warming is actually an illusion that has been deliberately fostered by a relatively small but extremely well-funded cadre of special interests, including Exxon Mobil and a few other oil, coal, and utilities companies. These companies want to prevent any new policies that would interfere with their current business plans...
One of the internal memos prepared by this group to guide the employees they hired to run their disinformation campaign was discovered by the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Ross Gelbspan. Here was the group’s stated objective: to “reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact.”
Internet searches of the “reposition global warming” phrase show how viral it is. However, more searching reveals former Boston Globe reporter Gelbspan not only has never won a Pulitzer, despite uncountable times he’s described as such, he is also not the discoverer of the ‘campaign’. Intensive investigation only reveals myriad ties to the phrase, but the actual 1991 internal PR campaign memo containing the phrase is never seen.
Gore’s 2004 NY Times review of Gelbspan’s then-current 2nd book offered this praise:
Gelbspan’s first book, “The Heat Is On” (1997), remains the best, and virtually only, study of how the coal and oil industry has provided financing to a small group of contrarian scientists...In this new book, Gelbspan focuses his toughest language by far on the coal and oil industries. After documenting the largely successful efforts of companies like ExxonMobil to paralyze the policy process, confuse the American people and cynically ‘reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.’....
Greenpeace director Phil Radford offers more praise, in an article describing two people he worked with who most impressed him:
John Passacantando, the former director of Greenpeace, whose strategic instinct and track record of changing the political landscape on global warming has made it possible to imagine that solving the problem could be a reality. And Ross Gelbspan...who...uncover[ed] the scandalous cover up of global warming by polluting companies. Ross has been the lone voice...that has inspired countless people, me included, to demand our country and our future back from the coal and oil interests behind global warming.
The article also says Radford worked for Ozone Action. Prior to 1996, their focus was ozone depletion. Ozone Action had just over/under $1 million worth of contributions per year in 1998, 1999 and 2000, under John Passacantando’s leadership, who then merged his group into Greenpeace in 2000. Greenpeace archive records of a 1996 Ozone Action report (page 5, paragraphs 3 & 4) reveal:
...the Information Council for the Environment (ICE) stated their goal was to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)”
According to documents obtained by Ozone Action and by Ross Gelbspan, several ICE strategies were laid out: the repositioning of global warming as theory, not fact....
The word “obtained” prompts questions about assertions that Gelbspan was the discoverer. Worse, Greenpeace/WWF activist Andrew Rowell cites the “reposition” phrase in his 1996 Green Backlash (2nd paragraph), while not saying where the “ICE internal packet” came from. NY Times reporter Matthew Wald’s July 8, 1991 article reported:
The goal of the campaign, according to one planning document, is to “reposition global warming as theory” and not fact.
A packet of internal correspondence and other information relating to the campaign was provided to The New York Times by the Sierra Club, the San Francisco-based environmental group that favors taking steps to reduce the risk of global warming.
Curtis Moore, who cites Wald’s article about the “reposition” phrase in his 1994 Green Gold, also refers to an interview of Simmons Advertising’s Tom Helland. That appears to be the same Simmons contact “T. Helland” seen in page 13 of another set of Greenpeace scans, a fair indication that Moore saw the documents. And, on pg 14, there is a Simmons letter describing “what you’ll find in this packet”, the same descriptive word in Rowell’s book note and Wald’s article. Gelbspan refers to other 1991 articles breaking this story near the bottom of the page at his web site. An obvious question is: who discovered these documents?
That second set of Greenpeace scans contains something vastly more important on page 10—the document with the “reposition” phrase in its complete context. Of all the internet searches for the phrase, I found no others showing it in its entirety, or any linking to this Greenpeace scan. In Gelbspan’s own hugely acclaimed 1997 book, no scan is shown, he simply says, “ICE documents in author’s possession”. Why is that? And what is the significance of yet another Greenpeace scan of an October 1996 Kalee Kreider email to “D Becker” at the Sierra Club? That’s probably Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club’s Global Warming Program from ‘89 to 2006. Kreider worked at Ozone Action just three months earlier, repeating the “reposition” phrase in a media release. Many now know Kreider as Al Gore’s spokesperson.
It turns out that the attempted slander of global warming skeptics as tools of big oil is as poorly grounded as the theory itself. Read more here.
See also developing “Healthy scepticism over climate change” here.