If the lentilista are sure of their ground..
Discussion
esselte said:
...then why do they do things like this clicky ?
It appears that they don't like people who don't toe the line....
It would indeed be utterly wrong, if the article were a true reflection of the facts. I wouldn't regard Christopher Booker as a reliable source as his articles containing accusations against "warmists" have been discussed in the P&P before and found to be utterly without foundations, so I for one would want to see some evidence beyond Bookers word. Likewise I wouldn't believe an accusation made by Monbiot of a sceptic for much the same reason. They are journalists in search of ratings, not truth.It appears that they don't like people who don't toe the line....
ludo said:
esselte said:
...then why do they do things like this clicky ?
It appears that they don't like people who don't toe the line....
It would indeed be utterly wrong, if the article were a true reflection of the facts. I wouldn't regard Christopher Booker as a reliable source as his articles containing accusations against "warmists" have been discussed in the P&P before and found to be utterly without foundations, so I for one would want to see some evidence beyond Bookers word. Likewise I wouldn't believe an accusation made by Monbiot of a sceptic for much the same reason. They are journalists in search of ratings, not truth.It appears that they don't like people who don't toe the line....
An interview with Taylor from earlier this year:
http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?Pu...
The interview finishes with:
FC: Do you have any thoughts on this polar bear roundtable?
MT: No, I don’t know what it’s about. I haven’t seen the agenda. All I know for sure is that I wanted to attend but I was not on the invitation list.
If you want to know Taylor's views on AGW, he explains them in the interview.
ETA I think Ludo means that it would be wrong to ban him for his views: a sentiment that I endorse too.
http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?Pu...
The interview finishes with:
FC: Do you have any thoughts on this polar bear roundtable?
MT: No, I don’t know what it’s about. I haven’t seen the agenda. All I know for sure is that I wanted to attend but I was not on the invitation list.
If you want to know Taylor's views on AGW, he explains them in the interview.
ETA I think Ludo means that it would be wrong to ban him for his views: a sentiment that I endorse too.
Edited by nigelfr on Sunday 28th June 22:02
s?This subject briefly came up on the Climate complex thread.
As I said there:
As I said there:
nigelfr said:
Interestingly, Booker says "This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December." The PBSG actually has met every 4 years from 1993 and says it plans to meet every 3-5 years.
I think the man sees conspiracies everywhere.
I think the man sees conspiracies everywhere.
Make of this what you will...
"Scientific projections of effects of climate change on sea ice in the Arctic vary— sometimes widely—and so we recommend that model-averaged projections, such as those presented by the 2007 report of the IPCC and 2004 Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment (ACIA), be used to anticipate effects of climate change on the distribution and abundance of polar bears. Projected changes in sea ice in the Arctic as outlined
by the IPCC are presented in the chapter of Christensen et al. (2007). In summary, the Arctic is very likely to continue to warm during this century in most areas, and the
annual mean warming is very likely to exceed the global mean warming. There will be an increase of 5°C in annual temperature from now to the end of the 21st century (as
estimated by the MMD-A1B ensemble mean projection of the IPCC); however, there is a considerable across-model range of 2.8°C to 7.8°C. Warming is projected to be greatest in winter and smallest in summer. Annual arctic precipitation is also very likely to increase in winter. Arctic sea ice is very likely to continue to decrease in extent and thickness, but it is uncertain how circulation patterns in the Arctic Ocean might change."
Taken from page 16: "COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Polar Bear Ursus maritimus in Canada"
And guess who's one of the authors... (page 75)
Dr. Mitch Taylor has devoted the past 30 years of his life to the scientific study and management of polar bears in Canada. Mitch is author to over 40 peer-reviewed journal articles on the species, largely presenting results of his own field-based research program. Mitch is also an author of the 2002 COSEWIC update on the status of polar bears in Canada. Mitch is the Manager of the Wildlife Research Section of the Government of Nunavut’s Department of Environment, and a long-term member of both the PBTC and IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group.
"Scientific projections of effects of climate change on sea ice in the Arctic vary— sometimes widely—and so we recommend that model-averaged projections, such as those presented by the 2007 report of the IPCC and 2004 Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment (ACIA), be used to anticipate effects of climate change on the distribution and abundance of polar bears. Projected changes in sea ice in the Arctic as outlined
by the IPCC are presented in the chapter of Christensen et al. (2007). In summary, the Arctic is very likely to continue to warm during this century in most areas, and the
annual mean warming is very likely to exceed the global mean warming. There will be an increase of 5°C in annual temperature from now to the end of the 21st century (as
estimated by the MMD-A1B ensemble mean projection of the IPCC); however, there is a considerable across-model range of 2.8°C to 7.8°C. Warming is projected to be greatest in winter and smallest in summer. Annual arctic precipitation is also very likely to increase in winter. Arctic sea ice is very likely to continue to decrease in extent and thickness, but it is uncertain how circulation patterns in the Arctic Ocean might change."
Taken from page 16: "COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Polar Bear Ursus maritimus in Canada"
And guess who's one of the authors... (page 75)
Dr. Mitch Taylor has devoted the past 30 years of his life to the scientific study and management of polar bears in Canada. Mitch is author to over 40 peer-reviewed journal articles on the species, largely presenting results of his own field-based research program. Mitch is also an author of the 2002 COSEWIC update on the status of polar bears in Canada. Mitch is the Manager of the Wildlife Research Section of the Government of Nunavut’s Department of Environment, and a long-term member of both the PBTC and IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group.
esselte said:
ludo said:
esselte said:
...then why do they do things like this clicky ?
It appears that they don't like people who don't toe the line....
It would indeed be utterly wrong, if the article were a true reflection of the facts. I wouldn't regard Christopher Booker as a reliable source as his articles containing accusations against "warmists" have been discussed in the P&P before and found to be utterly without foundations, so I for one would want to see some evidence beyond Bookers word. Likewise I wouldn't believe an accusation made by Monbiot of a sceptic for much the same reason. They are journalists in search of ratings, not truth.It appears that they don't like people who don't toe the line....
ludo said:
esselte said:
...then why do they do things like this clicky ?
It appears that they don't like people who don't toe the line....
It would indeed be utterly wrong, if the article were a true reflection of the facts. I wouldn't regard Christopher Booker as a reliable source as his articles containing accusations against "warmists" have been discussed in the P&P before and found to be utterly without foundations, so I for one would want to see some evidence beyond Bookers word. Likewise I wouldn't believe an accusation made by Monbiot of a sceptic for much the same reason. They are journalists in search of ratings, not truth.It appears that they don't like people who don't toe the line....
nigelfr said:
Play the ball not the man
You (ludo) attack Booker because he's accurate and effective and damaging to your political cause, all as per usual.Diderot said:
ludo said:
There are pseudo-scientists in search of funding, not truth.
EFA
Add in influence over political direction, bingo.
As one of these "scientists" (who is deliberately avoiding global warming and sustainablity issues in his work), I find the comments on this thread made in jest so depressingly true, it really does make me wonder for the future of academic discourse.
I find the parallels between the warming movement (i.e. consent; don't dare dissent) and organised religion *very* apparent.
For clarity - I agree with posters above: The community, and the influence of Government policy on the way in which research "performance" is measured (I'm not convinced that all meaningful research can be measured in the positivist terms that policy-makers love as feedback) and in which funding is allocated really is in a depressing state. Just look at the current crop of funding calls across all the funding councils - it's not just NERC.
It's got to the stage where I *really* struggle to find funding (and impact factors for my pulbications) simply because I refuse prostitute myself by dressing my work up with a sheen of "sustainability" like all my peers have done. Don't be fooled. Those that are studying sustainability are really doing what they always did, but have chased the money. The Government doesn't care, because it can now claim that "sustainable issues" are being funded. If they really were being studied, we would already have the alternative-energy engineering sector that we have been promised as a source of exports for some time now...
I find the parallels between the warming movement (i.e. consent; don't dare dissent) and organised religion *very* apparent.
For clarity - I agree with posters above: The community, and the influence of Government policy on the way in which research "performance" is measured (I'm not convinced that all meaningful research can be measured in the positivist terms that policy-makers love as feedback) and in which funding is allocated really is in a depressing state. Just look at the current crop of funding calls across all the funding councils - it's not just NERC.
It's got to the stage where I *really* struggle to find funding (and impact factors for my pulbications) simply because I refuse prostitute myself by dressing my work up with a sheen of "sustainability" like all my peers have done. Don't be fooled. Those that are studying sustainability are really doing what they always did, but have chased the money. The Government doesn't care, because it can now claim that "sustainable issues" are being funded. If they really were being studied, we would already have the alternative-energy engineering sector that we have been promised as a source of exports for some time now...
Edited by dxg on Monday 29th June 08:22
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
esselte said:
...then why do they do things like this clicky ?
It appears that they don't like people who don't toe the line....
It would indeed be utterly wrong, if the article were a true reflection of the facts. I wouldn't regard Christopher Booker as a reliable source as his articles containing accusations against "warmists" have been discussed in the P&P before and found to be utterly without foundations, so I for one would want to see some evidence beyond Bookers word. Likewise I wouldn't believe an accusation made by Monbiot of a sceptic for much the same reason. They are journalists in search of ratings, not truth.It appears that they don't like people who don't toe the line....
nigelfr said:
Play the ball not the man
You (ludo) attack Booker because he's accurate and effective and damaging to your political cause, all as per usual.
Booker is not a science journalist, and here are some examples of his scientific accuracy:Wikipedia said:
Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008[1], that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health[2], that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist"[3] and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans"[4]. He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".[5]
Yes, that is Wikipedia, but you can follow the links to get the original artices and the summary is correct.And for an example of falling hook line and sinker for a climate conspiracy, see the article discussed on this thread : http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a... where he says that "if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner", when it turns out that morner is a paleoseismologist and is not actually a leading sea level specialist with a distinctly average publication record. Booker repeats Morners accusation that the relevant chapter of the IPCC report doesn't have a single sea level specialist on the list of authors, when clearly it does (so Booker doesn't even bother checking the accuracy of his material, even when it is straightforward and requires no special expertise). He also repeats morners accusation
Morner said:
One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
which was also found to be complete nonsense, the changes and the reasons for them were well doccumented in the relevant litterature at the time and Morner showed a complete lack of understanding in his response to the refutation of his published work on this topic (yet he didn't mention that it had been refuted in the article).So while being said by Booker doesn't make a story false, his track record suggests that perhaps it ought to be taken with a pinch of salt, especially with stories such as this, where there may not actually be a ball to play!
ETA: as an example of Bookers accuracy, the end of this particluar article contains the line
Booker said:
After last year's recovery from its September 2007 low, this year's ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time.
rather unlikely judging by the most recent data, which shows current ice extent fairly close to the 2007 extent at the same time
and the opinion of the National Snow and Ice Data Center
NSIDC said:
Looking towards summer
Because the 2009 melt season started out with a thin ice pack, September ice extent will likely be below average yet again. The thinning ice pack, discussed in our April post, has played a major role in the strong decline of September ice extent. Thinner ice requires less energy to melt. It also tends to be fractured, with more areas of open water. Since water absorbs more solar energy than ice, heat from the sun warms up areas of open ocean and promotes even more melt.
September extent in a given year also depends on summertime patterns of atmospheric circulation. The record low ice extent in September, 2007 was caused by a combination of a thin spring ice cover and an unusual summer atmospheric circulation pattern. High pressure over the central Arctic Ocean and low pressure over Siberia blew warm air over the Arctic Ocean and compressed the ice pack into a smaller area. Whether or not Arctic sea ice reaches a new record low this summer will depend on the circulation patterns that set up over the next few months.
Between Booker and the NSIDC, I think I would view the NSIDC's prediction as the more reliable! Because the 2009 melt season started out with a thin ice pack, September ice extent will likely be below average yet again. The thinning ice pack, discussed in our April post, has played a major role in the strong decline of September ice extent. Thinner ice requires less energy to melt. It also tends to be fractured, with more areas of open water. Since water absorbs more solar energy than ice, heat from the sun warms up areas of open ocean and promotes even more melt.
September extent in a given year also depends on summertime patterns of atmospheric circulation. The record low ice extent in September, 2007 was caused by a combination of a thin spring ice cover and an unusual summer atmospheric circulation pattern. High pressure over the central Arctic Ocean and low pressure over Siberia blew warm air over the Arctic Ocean and compressed the ice pack into a smaller area. Whether or not Arctic sea ice reaches a new record low this summer will depend on the circulation patterns that set up over the next few months.
Edited by ludo on Monday 29th June 08:57
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff