All posts in category Global Warming

Climate Change – New Scientist puts smears before science

The latest issue of the New Scientist features a series of articles on climate change deniers (see below). The second – “Living in denial: When a sceptic isn’t a sceptic” compares “climate” deniers with deniers of the holocaust, 9/11, Aids, vaccine, evolution and the harmful effects of tobacco. It is this last that I have just posted a fuller analysis.

Alternatively consider these two arguments.

1. The proposition that smoking is harmful to health was initially based on a study of 34,000 British Doctors. The study itself was “heralded a new type of scientific research”. The results have been replicated, refined and further issues identified. To deny that smoking is harmful  to health is equivalent to denying a simple fact. By implication you are going against science, so must either have an ulterior motive or be a crank.

2. The proposition that the climate system will be changed catastrophically is agreed upon by a very large number of scientists, as a result of a huge numbers published papers, using similar empirical methods to that used in medical research. So those who oppose the AGW consensus, must be equivalent to those who oppose the medical consensus on smoking.

This is bad science seeking to piggy-back on the reputation of good science. If the results of climate change science were so clearly unambiguous, then the counter-arguments would be easily dismissed by clear presentation of that science. But there are deep flaws in the science, so smears are necessary.  

 

 Hatip wattsupwiththat From their article is the following:-

 
Here’s links to all the New Scientist articles on “denial”. They did include one article from Michael Fitzpatrick that is a 
feeble attempt at balance,but even it too strays into the ugly territory of comparing climate skeptics with AIDS deniers.
by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 15/05/2010  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, Science & Non-science, Science - the Boundaries
Tagged ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 15/05/2010

https://manicbeancounter.com/2010/05/15/climate-change-new-scientist-puts-smears-before-science/

Big Tobacco and Climate Change Deniers

NB – an article I wrote last year – slightly updated and posted here for the first time.

See also following post; “Climate Change – New Scientist puts smears before science”

A comment thrown at the “skeptics” or “deniers” is that they use a similar tactics to Big Tobacco in the fight against the harm that tobacco does to health (1). That is they issue false data and research to throw policy makers off the scent. Further, it is claimed they use similar arguments as Big Tobacco in opposing the climate change science.

This is a misleading analogy in four areas.

  1. On the tobacco issue, the first major study on the link between lung cancer, heart attacks and smoking was ground-breaking research based on questionnaires returned from over 34000 British doctors. This study was continued for 50 years, reinforcing the original findings. Further, independent studies not only corroborated these initial findings, but enhanced the detail. Much of the initial temperature data for AGW studies were more ambiguous, reliant on a loose correspondence between the rise in greenhouse gases and average global temperatures. Moreover, data is often not properly archived, whether early studies (eg. Jones et al 1990), or later ones (e.g. Kaufman et al 2009)
  2. On tobacco issues, it is possible to have a control group. That is, you can follow the health of a large representative group of people who smoke, and follow a similar cross-section of society group who do not smoke. The control for anthropogenic warming is temperature histories. That is, if recent warming is unprecedented in a thousand years or more, it can only be explained by anthropogenic factors. If however, the 20th century warming was no bigger than similar warmings at 1,000 and 2,000 years ago, then the anthropogenic element is likely to be small. Not only has the two most influential past temperatures reconstructions showing the former case have been rebutted (MBH 1998 – see especially Mcintyre 2008b and Briffa 2000), but also the total temperature reconstructions that show the medieval period was at least as warm as currently outnumber 7 to 1 that show the it was cooler.
  3. The selection criteria on medical research is published, along with sample sizes and the statistical tests on the results. Therefore, statisticians can check the results. The statistician and climate skeptic Steve McIntyre has his work cut out to get similar information from the climate scientists. See for instance the battle for the Briffa’s Yamal data or the Jones data that underpins the temperature reconstructions of the IPCC.
  4. In general, the vast majority of medical research published in peer-reviewed journals is later refuted, or at least undermined. It is often of poor quality. Therefore in medicine, a peer reviewed research is but the first stage in getting an idea established. It needs to be replicated by other studies and cross-checked. Climate science is summarized by the UN IPCC is a form that reinforces a partisan viewpoint, rather than drawing conclusions through comparing and contrasting. For instance Steve McIntyre has posted his reviewer’s objections to the analysis of past temperatures in the 2007 assessment report, and the rejections. In the light of his subsequent exposure if the Yamal paper, these turn out to be entirely valid.

 

For the analogy to be upheld, climatologists need to show that their research programme is comparable in robustness and replication as the medical research was in the 1970s. My contention is that it falls far short. By implication, those who are either skeptical of the robustness of the results, or who deny completely the validity of the research programme, have much surer foundations for their doubts, even before presenting any research to the contrary.

1.See, for instance, Thomas Fuller (who, seeks communication between the opposing sides) at examiner.com

The fact that for many of the staunchest activists any bending is tantamount to surrender makes compromise difficult. They take their lessons from what happened with Big Tobacco, where the strategy of introducing doubt into the science allowed them to postpone accountability for their actions. They must take a blood oath or something to never admit error and never back down. I don’t admire them for that–they should trust the power of the truth.

Medical papers from sloppy analysis http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html

(Hattip Anthony Watts blog http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/09/maybe_they_need_a_statistical.html#comments)

The argument of big tobacco and anti-AGW is backed by a BBC Newsnight on Phillip Morris funding one of the 1st anti-AGW groups. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/21/bbc-global-warming/

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 15/05/2010  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, Science - the Boundaries, Uncategorized
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 15/05/2010

https://manicbeancounter.com/2010/05/15/big-tobacco-and-climate-change-deniers/

Nick Clegg’s confusion on total and absolute heating costs

Nick Clegg has made a mistake on the leader’s debate.

He said that an old couple in a small house are paying more for their heating than somebody in a bit mansion. This is simply not true. A large home costs far more to heat than a small one. What is true is that

a) You pay a fixed charge per property. Some companies spread this over the first few units. Therefore the average overall cost per unit is less.

b) Some of the poor who have a poor or no payment history have to use pre-payment meters. This does not include the settled poor, who have faithfully paid their bills all their lives.

c) The rates paid are hugely different between those who shop around and those who do not. If you know of people who are unable to effectively shop around, then do, as I have, and help them switch. For instance uswitch.com is a good starting point.

Nick Clegg’s mistake is to confuse marginal and actual costs.

But remember – when all the political leader tout their green credentials, they are actually saying that they will increase the costing of heating. Wind power, or nuclear, or tidal, or solar panels are all far more costly than coal and oil.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 22/04/2010  •  Permalink
Posted in General Election 2010, Global Warming, Liberal Democrats
Tagged , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 22/04/2010

https://manicbeancounter.com/2010/04/22/nick-cleggs-confusion-on-total-and-absolute-heating-costs/

Futerra – The Propagandists of Climate Change Totalitarianism?

 

Ian Dale takes issue with the way taxpayer money is being used to indoctrinate people about climate change. 
The PR agency Futerra have produced a leaflet which allegedly make “It’s the use of totalitarian indoctrination techniques designed to manipulate public opinion.”

Having a quick look at their website, I am not sure from what perspective Futerra are coming from.

From the comments Dale makes they seem like a bunch of frustrated Marxists. The deniers are suffering from false consiousness. Hence the comments about there being no ‘rational man’ and using social learning. Then again, they could be frustrated telly-evangelists from the comments about “Link climate change mitigation to positive desires aspirations” and again use of social learning (or collective worship).

This can be more clearly seen from other documents on their website.

“Be part of the revolution.” (http://www.futerra.co.uk/revolution/)

But this document provides the best clues. – http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Sellthesizzle.pdf

“For years we’ve tried to ‘sell’ climate change, but a lot of people aren’t buying. Despite a strange recent resurgence in denial, the science is unequivocal.” “For all of us desperately promoting action, finding ingenious ways to communicate climate change or just banging our heads against the hard brick wall of climate denial – we need to find the sizzle.”

Translated as – the truth is self-evident to those of us who are in the know, we just have to explain it better.

The religious analogy is then clearly stated.

“Climate change sounds like hell, so where is heaven?

Climate change itself isn’t the sizzle, it’s the sausage. That’s where our second metaphor comes in. The most common message on climate change is that we’re all going to hell.” And “Hell doesn’t sell”

 

“Heaven sizzles

But there is one message that almost every audience responds to. A narrative that changes hearts, minds and even behaviours. An approach needed now more than ever before. And it’s the opposite of climate hell. We must build a visual and compelling vision of low carbon heaven.”

Or maybe neither is right. Maybe it is just a sideline of the Prime Minister’s. After all Futerra state “For nearly nine years we’ve helped you save the world.” We know that such a statement can only refer to Gordon Brown. (http://www.futerra.co.uk/home) The New Labour theme also chimes with the ‘message is right, just the communication that is wrong.’

Maybe it is time for some of their clients to take another look at their Eco PR agency. Beneath its thin green veil lie fanatical, intolerant and pseudo-religious views.

If we are truely concerned with the planet, maybe we should weigh up the evidence, take on board genuine complaints and listen. In the realm of science it means a bit of humility and recognizing when we get things wrong.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 21/02/2010  •  Permalink
Posted in Eco-Fanatics, Gordon Brown, Spin (Propaganda)
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 21/02/2010

https://manicbeancounter.com/2010/02/21/futerra-the-propagandists-of-climate-change-totalitarianism/

Himalayan Glaciers, the UNIPCC response and an Inquiry

The response of the UNIPCC to the revelation that its 2007 prediction that the Himalayan Glaciers would disappear by 2035 has been

  1. To claim the allegations are voodoo science.
  2. To apologize, but say it is a one-off and insignificant.

 

Most reporters accept this response. For instance The Economist.

Let up put this into context.

Consider three (hypothetical) scenarios form the UK.

1. The police investigation into a (possibly) racially-motivated murder is flawed, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The Chief Superintendant blames it on lack of funds for staff training, having previously said race was not a motive.

2. A profitable, listed company goes bust as a result of long-term massaging of the figures. This occurs three months after a respected accountancy firm signs off the annual accountants with no adverse comments. A senior partner says that the auditors were denied access to certain data, but had a signed note from the CFO that another accountancy firm had reviewed that data as part of a management-consultancy exercise. The CFO claims that the company was sound, and has an independent audit to prove it.

3. A highly-rated hospital turns out to have significantly higher death-rates than the average. The hospital chief executive says that it is due to having to cut back on the cleaning, having previously stated that the figures were flawed and politically biased.

In every case, the press and opposition politicians, would be asking for independent enquires (to assess the extent of the problem and to make preventative recommendations for the future), the suspensions of those involved and the sacking of the top person in the organization. So why no such questions, when there is a serious procedural failing in (probably) the most important scientific report of all time? A report that could adversely impact the living standards of billions of people should be to the highest scientific standards ever achieved.

It is not a minor mistake to misquote and embellish a tract from a campaigning group – and then say the forecast is highly likely, without any statistical analysis. This report is written by top Phd’s in their field, not first-year undergraduates. They should know how to assess reports, and draw accurate conclusions based on the evidence.

Further, whilst it is right for the UN IPCC to recognize the error and apologize, it is not for that organization to say, without internal investigation, that this is an isolated incident.

There should be an independent audit of all the report, to make sure that it is uniformly based on clearly-defined scientific standards. The starting point of an audit should be an evaluation of the laid-down scientific standards, and the documented internal control procedures for evaluating the adherence to those standards.

Areas of a full audit might include:-

  1. That the report is a balanced assessment of the current state of the science, at least noting competing views where it comes down on one side.
  2. Any statistical probabilities to be verified by trained statisticians.
  3. Assumptions, where made, should be identified.
  4. Measurement errors compared to the changes measured.
  5. The robustness of conclusions over differing timescales. For instance the correlations between increase in CO2 and temperature changes should not be over a defined period, but should test for a decade
  6. Gaps in the knowledge identified and put into the context of known factors and measurement errors.
  7. To note the relative standpoints of lead authors of parts of the report in respect to the established science. That is to whether they have recent, novel or controversial standpoints. And to the extent to which this influenced their review comments.
  8. For recently published peer-reviewed articles central to the aspect, whether it firmly establishes new ground in the debate.
by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 23/01/2010  •  Permalink
Posted in Beancounting Methodology, Climate Change, Global Warming, Science & Non-science

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 23/01/2010

https://manicbeancounter.com/2010/01/23/himalayan-glaciers-the-unipcc-response-and-an-inquiry/

Monbiot tries to re-polarize the debate

In the Guardian, George Monbiot tries to brush aside the Climategate scandal and brush aside the doubts shown about the integrity of science.  Back comes the polarization of camps into the “scientific consensus” v the denialists funded by the oil companies.  He forgets to mention that government funding of alarmist “science” is greater than 100 times that of Exxon/Mobile, nor that being an alarmist gets media attention (no matter how extreme or unfounded), whilst being even moderately against can get you vilified.

My comment was as follows

The climate change e-mails crisis, at the very minimum, shows that there is room for doubt about the most extreme claims made for global warming. Whilst the most general claims about 20th century warming are beyond reasonable doubt, there is a big middle ground between the consensus and those, like Nick Griffin, who claim it is all a hoax. 

Whilst you say there are just the denialists and the scientists, look at the e-mails and you will see that it the competitors that really got the backs up of the Profs at CRU were those who could do most damage. Two of note are:-

 1. Steve McIntyre a professional statistician who has shown that some peer-reviewed articles do not stand up to scrutiny. The scientists did not get endless requests. (see MicIntyre’s account at http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/dirty-laundry/) . They were less onerous than a visit by the VAT inspector. To a business with the books in order these people of HMRC are very pleasant, and will point out some honest mistakes (sometimes to business’s advantage). To those that know that there are “issues”, it means working through the night and trying to avoid the inevitable. But FOI requests have less precedential ground rules.

As a result of Mcintyre’s analysis no proper scientist can now say “We are experiencing the warmest temperatures for 10,000 or 2,000,000 years”.  We either do not know, or there are a number of studies to suggest that some areas were warmer 1000, 2000, or 3500 years ago. But there again, McIntyre is but

 2. Richard Lindzen, a Meteorologist Professor of MIT. Long a critic of the “consensus”, his recent paper with Yong-Sang Choi (summary pdf at http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf) claims that forecasts of future warming are overstated by a factor of six. Lindzen & Choi, however, only rely on 15 years of satellite date, whereas the consensus relies on more than 20 years of the best climate model forecasting. Furthermore, Lindzen has written articles for a virulently pro-capitalist financial daily of the t’other side o’pond.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 09/12/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 09/12/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/12/09/monbiot-tires-to-re-polarize-the-debate/

Should Lord Stern remember some economics?

After Lord Stern’s comments about becoming a vegatarian to save the plant, I suggested he should be consistent and become a vegan. A post by Martin Livermore on the Adam Smith Insitute blog got me thinking that maybe Lord Stern would be advised to remember some lessons from economics. After all, as an economist, Lord Stern was employed to do a cost benefit analysis of tackling global warming. The report was only able to reach its conclusion that we should do something now by taking an extreme view of future temperature change (thus overstating the benefits of any remedy) and seriously understating the costs. Mostly this was by failing to apply an appropriate rate of discount to future costs and benefits.

Since then Lord Stern has become increasingly alarmist. If instead, he applied some of the tools of his profession he would conclude the following.

 

1. Most of the largest greenhouse gas producers are things that have an inelastic demand – such as petrol and fuel to heat one’s home. Therefore the costs will tend to exceed the benefits.

 

2. There are diminishing returns to emissions reductions. Small decreases can be achieved easily. At home most can save a bit by better insulation in the loft, or by turning town the thermostat by 1 degree. Car fuel consumption can be reduced by driving more economically. Bigger savings are less easy, without fundamental changes in lifestyle, which for the majority would mean a significant drop in living standards. For instance,

– switching from frozen and chilled foods to dried and tinned foods.

– switching foreign holidays to camping in the back garden.

– From travelling by car to work to spending three times as long going by public transport, or catching pneumonia cycling.

 

3. Large government projects tend to overrun on costs, and under-perform on benefits. The bigger and more idealistic the project, the larger the (proportionate) discrepancy between plan and outcome. International projects tend to overrun more than national one, as consensus is only achieved by compromise fudging. For the greatest trans-government project of all time, this risk alone should lead to the complete abandonment.

 

4. Complex models tend to fail most in their forecasting when you need them most. Consensus economic forecasts made in 2006 for 2009 would have predicted growth, not biggest slump since the 1930s. Yet compared to economic, climatology is more complex and still in its infancy as a subject. Further there is no competitive market in forecasting to encourage improvement and revision in the light of new data. In economics reputable  forecasting is a valuable commodity. In Climate Science, one is paid to agree with the consensus.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 30/10/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Eco-Fanatics, Economics, Global Warming

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 30/10/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/10/30/should-lord-stern-remember-some-economics/

Should Lord Stern now go Vegan?

According to the Times, Lord Stern has gone Vegetarian in an attempt to save the planet. The simple reason is that methane (which cattle and pigs produce in vast quantities) is 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. We therefore need to cut back drastically on the quantity of cattle. But hold on a minute. We also get milkfrom cows as well. Should we be switching to Soya milk and synthetic cheese? Lord Stern

“predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”

So when the eco-fanatics start attacking the meat counter of Tescos and sabotaging the school milk deliveries, we will know who to charge with incitement to commit acts of criminal damage and terrorism. Make a change from them dumping manure and sabotaging tyres ot 4x4s.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 28/10/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Eco-Fanatics

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 28/10/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/10/28/should-lord-stern-now-go-vegan/

Post Briffa Yamal paper collapse, is the 0.5% chance of <2oC C21st a good bet?

One of my favourite blogs is Political Betting, not because I am a punter, but because (principally) Mike Smithson aims to give an assessment of how political opinion is moving ad the events that move it. One of the areas to bet on is spread betting, where (in the UK) the blog comments on bets on the number of seats that will be gained by the political parties in the forthcoming general election.

At Wattsupwiththat.com, it reports on some MIT academics producing a fortune wheel.

It is interesting that these chaps from MIT only see a 1 in 200 chance of temperatures not rising above 2 degrees. It is a shame that the forecast is for so long in the future as (where gambling laws allow) it would seem a pretty good wager.  It may be possible to still create a betting market in this with something known as spread betting – a sort of futures market in the gambling industry. For political elections it develops a valid consensus of people “putting their money where their mouth is.” It turns out to be a more accurate assessment of opinion than opinion polls. If the people from MIT represent to popular consensus, then it may be a chance for the skeptics to make some money. As the forecasts of catastrophe fail to materialize, the skeptics will be able to sell their positions at a healthy profit, at the expense of the consensus,who will lose their shirts. My forecast is that the consensus will suddenly become all moralistic about such an idea. Why? Because they would believe that the betting would be far less alarmist than the supposed consensus. This is particularly relevent since MIT have not taken account of the undermining of Briffa’s paper on tree-rings as proxies for temperatures in the Yamal Penninsula.

For those not following the recent climate change debate, Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has taken apart another hockey stick (See Here, here, here & Here for Climate Audit, or here & here for a Layman’s summary from Bishop Hill)

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 04/10/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 04/10/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/10/04/post-briffa-yamal-paper-collapse-is-the-0-5-chance-of-2oc-c21st-a-good-bet/

Manure dumpers a product of Climate Change Extremism

The dumping of manure on Jeremy Clarkson’s lawn is another example of using intimidation is silence the critics. Just like those who vandalise 4×4 cars in Manchester, they are the product of taking an extreme line on Global Warming.

They are the outcome of a process of

1. The emission of greenhouse gases by humans will theoretically raise global temperatures by maybe 0.5 to 1.0 degrees this century. This seems to correlate with the temperature data of the past century, though it is not a complete explanation.

2. Bodies like the UNIPCC then assume that there will be a positive feedback loop. The computer models project with that small rise in temperatures will increase the water vapour in upper atmosphere. As this is over 95% of greenhouse gas, a small increase will lead to large rises in temperature. So the forecast churned out by those models is around 2 to 4 degrees.

3. The climatologists then assume that the data collected is unbiased, is accurate and the recent warming is a unique feature. Therefore the results have a high level of confidence and explanatory power.

4. This is then dressed up with appropriate political spin and certainty. They claim a scientific consensus. whilst denouncing those who reject it as having impure motives, or being deranged, or simply people beyond the pale.

5. The seriousness of the impending climate change enhanced by dire predictions of the consequences for the human race and for other species. Probable benefits of a slight warming and higher CO2 levels are never considered,

6. The UK government (along with others) responds by setting draconian reduction targets.

7. Environmental groups, like the Green Party, look at the most extreme predictions, then say it does not go far enough and want yet more draconian targets.

8. This gives the fanatical, morally self-righteous (e.g. Green Fist, Plane Stupid and Climate Rush) who want to commit puerile acts of vandalism and intimidation, dressed up as saving the planet.

9. The perpetrators of these acts then decide to take matters further, going beyond their remit. In this case of the 4×4 vandals, slashing car tyres, instead of just letting them down.

 

The extreme acts are as a consequence of the extreme case portrayed in the media. We need to pause, and consider the evidence. A more balanced view would be that the case is more nuanced, and that any further warming is likely is be small.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 19/09/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Eco-Fanatics, Global Warming, Spin (Propaganda)

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 19/09/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/09/19/manure-dumpers-a-product-of-climate-change-extremism/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »