Once again the sceptic-friendly opinion pages of the Herald provide noted NZ denier Chris de Freitas with a platform to spout the most astonishing tripe. It seems CdF reacted badly to a Reuters report about Tuvalu’s concerns about sea level rise. So he rushes to assure the Pacific island nation that their problem has nothing to do with climate change:
There is some inundation evident on islands in Tuvalu, but global warming is not the cause. It is the result of erosion, sand mining and construction projects causing an inflow of sea water.
That’s a relief. An associate professor in the geography department at Auckland University knows better than the world’s climate scientists and the government of Tuvalu. I hope the people of Tuvalu are suitably relieved.
Unfortunately, Chris undermines his good deed by continuing to talk utter nonsense. And “utter” is a mild description.
It seems he’s content to repeat the error I corrected last November:
Despite this it is noteworthy that historical records show no acceleration in sea level rise in the 20th and 21st centuries. It is important to keep in mind that greenhouse gas-induced climate change can also act to substantially reduce sea level.
This is, of course, nonsense. Not only has sea level rise accelerated, but the potential for future rapid and large increases is causing increasing concern.
But there’s worse. The following paragraph left me quite breathless:
There is now a substantive body of research reported in peer-reviewed scientific journal literature that suggests that sea levels, which have been rising since the end of the last ice age (long before industrialisation), are likely to stabilise or fall in a greenhouse-warmed world.
Er, sorry, did he say a “substantive body of research” suggests sea levels might fall? This is pure fiction. CdF is usually very careful with his choice of (weasel) words, but if we take substantive to mean “substantial: having a firm basis in reality and being therefore important, meaningful, or considerable” (Princeton WordNet), then we can see that he is entirely wrong. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but substantive? No. That’s why the IPCC’s fourth report – a review of the extant scientific literature – found that sea levels are likely to rise. Since AR4, the current literature has suggested that SLR could exceed the AR4 projections by a considerable margin.
The Herald should choose its commentators on scientific matters with more care. Associate professor de Freitas is of course entitled to his views on the seriousness of climate change and its impact on Tuvalu and the rest of the world, but he should not be allowed to misrepresent the scientific literature in the nation’s leading newspaper. And the Herald should be ashamed of letting him get away with it.
de Freitas is frequently published in the Herald Perspective pages. It was only in November that he last had a piece claiming that there was no evidence for dangerous climate change from human action. I wrote a letter in response that time, but must confess that this time I gave up, rather hoping that someone else might respond. Perhaps the professor title does it for the Herald when it comes to scientific credentials.
Is there some definitive source for sea levels worldwide? No matter how incredibly hard that would be. And why is there so much emphasis on Tuvalu? Surely there would be other atoll-size countries having similar problems?
Isn’t somone whose fields include: Environmental climatology, Climate of tourist caves and management, Bioclimatology, Climate change and impact assessment, Atmospheric hazards one of the afore-mentioned “world’s climate scientists”?
Sources of sea level info: The Wikipedia page on SLR is excellent, and includes comprehensive links.
Tuvalu has been concerned about the prospect of rising sea level for years, and is an active member of the “small island states” group lobbying for recognition of the problem, and action on solutions. It is by no means on its own, but is one of the noisiest in the group – and if you see the pictures of flooding during king tides you might understand why.
CdF has published on climate impacts, but is not an SLR expert. He is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. He blatantly misrepresents the real science in an attempt to influence opinion.
Just read some first year physical geology. Holmes for example. Coral islands keep up with rising sea level. If they did not they would not be there but as gyots hundreds of metres below sea level. The drivel you lot spout is beyond belief at times.
This is a good little read on sea level rise:
http://tinyurl.com/ytpwea
(from open mind).
Gareth, did you see Muriel Newman’s latest? Really she has missed her true calling: writing fantasy novels.
Happy Easter
Ah right. Might be good if you could provide these very useful links in the original post, along with the scoffing…cheers!
Where’s the fun if you can’t scoff at mendacity?
It’s not just Tuvalu getting worried. Here’s a piece from the Independent (UK) about new projections of SLR and the potential impact on London.
terence: Yes, I have seen Muriel’s latest nonsense. I’m not going to dignify it with a debunk because all she’s doing is recycling stuff from the “conference” organised by the Heartland Institute in New York. And she’s not even doing that accurately – she’s adding her own mistakes on top.
I am much more interested in what ACT party climate policy for the coming election will be.
Ah yes, that conference in NYC. Our own Owen McShane and Vincent Gray went, to speak, presumably getting paid the US$1000 speakers fee, plus travel and plush hotels. Must be nice to be taking exxon money.
Also note Dave Hansford’s column in last week’s Listener – Bryan Leyland admits Heartland paid, at least in part, for him, Gray and McShane to go to Bali.
If anyone’s interested in getting some history of the climate sceptic industry, and has a spare hour, watch Nancy Oreskes’ lecture on you tube
She ends with a great point: that this industry is politically-driven, but that they disguise their political argument as a scientific debate. Ultimately, it has not only misrepresented the state of climate science, confused the American (and, to some extent, the New Zealand) public, and let to political inaction on one of the most pressing issues of our time.
Thanks cindy. I gave Oreskes the front page treatment a while ago (and it’s Naomi, by the way…)
Scoffing’s fine, just as long as you back it up. Cheers
ah yes, my mistake…of course it’s Naomi Oreskes. (I was maybe getting confused with Nancy pelosi who’s been in the news lately).
Oreskes has now become a target for the sceptic industry.
Here’s the latest on the Heartland conference – ABC news ran a piece on Fred Singer on Sunday evening.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4505513&affil=kgo
Hi Gareth,
Yeah – the depressing thing is that – as documented on my blog – via an Actoid friend, I got the chance to point out (on one of her forums) where she was wrong in her article. What was her response? Retraction? Considered engagement? Cogent rebuttals? Nope – just a whole heap more nonsense, fired randomly at me. Really, I could make a Denier Talking Point generator, which randomly pasted their main claims into opeds and emails, and it would produce more coherent arguments.
Actually the Telegraph reported in 2000 that depspite the ‘projections’ in the 1990’s of SLR for Tuvalu there was a SLD of 2.5 inches.
Wikipedia, wow, now there’s an accurate source, NOT.
“new projections of SLR and the potential impact on London”
Projections are useless without the evidence to back them up. And no, computer modelling doesn’t cut it as we have already witnessed with IPCC ‘projections’ on AGW.
Cindy: Are you actually educated ? Because from what you have written I really do wonder !
Funding of skeptics from big oil is but a drop in the hat compared to grants given to those to support the adgena of the IPCC. Of course this situation isn’t just evident in the global warming debate.
“this industry is politically-driven, but that they disguise their political argument as a scientific debate”
Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black, what a hypocrite. She just described the whole AGW scam !! Maybe she and Al should get hitched.
Oh yeah Cindy, I bet you drooled with delight over the CBS attack on Singer. That sort of non-journalism was probably right up your alley. I mean after all, sheep are pretty dumb.
So bat’s back! Still nothing in the way of reasoned arguments to support his ideologically based beliefs though.
Bat,
Welcome back. How nice it is to have our own knee-jerk denialist on tap. Not as handy as Speights on tap, but you’ll do. Provided you try to remember to be polite.
Take a look at the chart of sea level at Funafuti from the University of Hawaii. Notice anything? It goes up and down a lot, and very significantly down during El Nino episodes. But the average now is higher now than in the 80s.
And re funding: sceptics are explicitly funded to deny any problem or minimise its importance. Scientists are not funded to any “agenda” – they’re funded to do interesting work. The results fall where they may.
You seem to prefer to shoot the messenger because you dislike the message he’s carrying.
Andrew W: Still nothing intelligent to say I see.
Gareth: Thank you. Was 2000 an El Nino year ?
Is the sea rising or is the land sinking or rising ?
“sceptics are explicitly funded to deny any problem or minimise its importance”
NO, skeptics need funding just like the alarmists to present their side of the argument. [Edited by GR to remove offensive material]
And Gareth, if you really believe there is no bias in science in any field I truly do feel sorry for your ignorance.
Bat, if you can’t keep yourself from making frankly offensive accusations about others motives, then I’ll have to edit or remove your posts. Keep your comments polite, please.
Sceptics are being funded to muddy the waters, to delay and obfuscate – as the Oreskes lecture demonstrates.
Bias in science? Science can’t escape the effects of the society in which it operates, but the scientific process – especially peer review – generally does a good job of keeping work focussed on facts. The trouble with denialists is that they deny those facts, so criticise those who unearth them.
Gareth: What can I say………….if the glove fits !!
So I see facism, ignorance and hypocrisy is alive and well in this forum.
So your sulking now because I called you lot out on how you really behave when faced with opposition to your views.
Maybe China would be more to your liking. That way if ones views didn’t support the officaal version, it wouldn’t see the light of day. Bet that would bring a big smile to your face.
I’ll let your last comment stand so that other readers can see why you were edited. Accusations of fascism or hypocrisy are not “polite” in my book, and you have been warned to keep it polite. If you can’t, I will edit you.
I’m perfectly happy to “debate” with you – but you simply reject the validity of any facts that run counter to your views, and accuse others of extreme politics. To the rest of the world, I’m afraid that it’s you who come across as extreme.
Gareth: Frankly I think you should have left the entire previous post to let others see for themselves.
“Accusations of fascism or hypocrisy are not “polite†in my book”
So, what, you want a free ride on this. If you don’t want to stand accussed don’t come across as such. Maybe you honestly don’t see it because your posting from your own point of view.
Example:
“but you simply reject the validity of any facts that run counter to your views, and accuse others of extreme politics”
1. Hypocrisy – you do the same.
2. I never mentioned extreme politics.
And just how might I come across as extreme ?
I’m at least willing to give EVERYONE a fair go to express their views. I don’t attack or discredit an alarmist just because he or she gets to have their say via a newspaper, tv or any other form of media.
Sorry I can’t say the same for others here.
bat, the unfairness and bias you’re complaining about is all in your head. Gareth is happy to have you comment on his blog, and, speaking for myself, I welcome you’re viewpoint as it’s a perspective to test the basis of my own view on AGW against, I hate echo chambers.
I especially enjoy your comments when they contain some sort of argument.
Now, if we look at blogs in NZ that are dedicated to the subject of AGW, or which have a lot of posts on the subject, so many of the denialist sites simply don’t support free speech, you can’t comment on “itsascam”, or on the NZ CSC site, or on Leightonsmith. All credit to Murial Newman for allowing comments, but she seems to be the exception rather than the rule with supposedly free speech loving denialists.
Surely in hindsight you can see how ridiculous it is to come onto this site and claim Gareth isn’t giving you the opportunity to have your say?
Andrew: I’m not complaining about free speech on this forum, nor that Gareth isn’t letting me have my say.
I’m trying to point out that there IS another side to the AGW debate and EVERYONE should be entitled to be heard without being attacked or scoffed at whether they are for or against.
Did you see the CBS piece on Fred Singer ? Do you honestly think that is an example of professional journalism ?
The bias and sensationalism is rife in the MSM.
And locally did anybody see Wasted on TV last night ? That my friends is why they call it ‘programming’ !!
Bat said:
I’m not attempting to silence anyone, but I will not accept that people have a right to lie in support of their chosen cause. The denialists I criticise here are called on their factual errors, not on their personal characteristics.
Equally, as “publisher” of this material on the intertubes, I do have to be cognisant of the laws of libel and defamation. So argue your case, don’t stoop to insults, and you’re welcome here.
Gareth:
“I will not accept that people have a right to lie in support of their chosen cause. The denialists I criticise here are called on their factual errors”
Are you a climate expert ?
What gives YOU the right to decide who is ‘lying’ ? Because of your belief, you in this instance cannot be unbiased.
Why are the ‘denialists’ lying and not the ‘alarmists’ ? So there are no ‘factual errors’ on the ‘alarmists’ side ?
Again Gareth, I hardly think you are in a position to make that call. So it appears that you will indeed criticise unfairly at times based on your own viewpoint.
This is not a game of my god is bigger than your god.
Gareth the mere fact that you use the term ‘cranks’ and ‘denialists’ to refer to those who oppose the MSM view of AGW really does speak volumes. It almost says that as far as you are concerned the debate IS over and you don’t want to hear it.
Or to quote Bill O’Reilly, “Just SHUT UP !!”
Bat, I criticised CdF above for grossly misrepresenting the state of the science on sea level rise. He basically made stuff up in support of his point. That, to me, is unacceptable.
You can’t make up your own facts. The science of climate change does its best to tease the facts out of a highly complex system. I try to present the results in a reasonably objective manner. However, there are people – like yourself, Singer, and others covered by Oreskes in her talk – that can’t accept facts at face value. Politics clouds your view, I try to keep it out of mine.
You are content to label me as a fascist or leftie because I think that climate change is a clear and present danger. I don’t define my politics in that way. The problem stands outside the politics: the politics is in how you deal with it, not in whether it’s real or not.
When you get to that point, perhaps we’ll be able to have some interesting debates. Until then, you remain fundamentally irrelevant (if mildly entertaining).
bat: “EVERYONE should be entitled to be heard without being attacked or scoffed at whether they are for or against.”
So what did Cindy do to you?
“Did you see the CBS piece on Fred Singer ? Do you honestly think that is an example of professional journalism ?”
What CBS piece? Did you see ‘Swindle’?
Misrepresentation of the facts by denialists is too common bat.
“The bias and sensationalism is rife in the MSM.”
bat, how often do Gareth or I use the MSM as a source of information? We don’t rely on it, given its “bias”, why, oh why, do you??
Regarding my use of “denialist”, think in terms of someone in denial about a problem. I would argue that the term is no more, and probably less pejorative than “alarmist”, especially when “alarmist” is used to describe people who accept the mainstream position on AGW, but are not convinced that a “crisis” or “catastrophy” will be the inevitable result of BAU.
Gareth: Have you ever criticised info from a pro AGW scientist here ?
“He basically made stuff up in support of his point. That, to me, is unacceptable.”
Didn’t Gore do the same in AIT ?
“However, there are people – like yourself, Singer, and others – that can’t accept facts at face value.”
That could just as easily describe the ‘alarmists’.
“Politics clouds your view, I try to keep it out of mine.”
The politics make me weary, not cloud my view. I would say you should pay more attention to the political side of this issue.
I did NOT label you at all for your view. The facism was refering to your seemingly diswant for the other side of the argument to be heard via the media.
Climate CHANGE may indeed be real we just differ in our beliefs on the cause. And trying to scare people into submission is not the answer. Hence the term alarmist.
Andrew: I was refering to scientists not lay people.
Sorry Andrew, the hit piece on Singer was part of ABC’s “World News” on Sunday.
Yes I saw Swindle, and AIT.
“Misrepresentation of the facts by alarmists is too common andrew.”
I never said you guys used the MSM as a source. And why would I, 9 times out of 10 they are pro AGW anyway.
I only use alarmist to make a point of your use of ‘crank’ and ‘denialist’. To me none of these terms and to use Gareth’s definition, polite, let alone professional.
Oh, so you are talking about the segment that Cindy linked to above, you have some problem with it?
bat, The Telegraph and WSJ, along with certain blogs, seem to be your main source of information, eg. above in the first paragraph of your first comment on this thread you refer to a Telegraph claim in 2000 on SLR.
In the ABC segment Singer’s true colours were revealed by himself.
Asked if he was a sceptic or denier etc. he said he was a “realist”.
Asked about the scientific organisations that he disagreed with on AGW he said “they’re wrong”.
Asked if he ever woke up wondering if he could be wrong, he said “never”.
That attitude ‘I’m right, they’re wrong, no need to examine or have any doubt in my own beliefs’, was what made Singer look really, really arrogant, stupidly pig headed and totally unscientific in his approach, not the reporter, not the Greenpeace guy, Fred Singer.
And I will add that this attitude is almost universal amongst denialists (and extreme alarmists), it’s a clear sign that ideology has swept away scientific objectivity.
Bat:Gareth: Have you ever criticised info from a pro AGW scientist here ?
Most climate scientists are actually very cautious when speaking about their work. Even James Hansen, who is widely regarded as the most outspoken senior climate scientist, is pretty cautious when stacked up against someone like James Lovelock – who even I would probably agree was “alarmist”. I also prefer to concentrate on the science rather than the advocacy.
“He basically made stuff up in support of his point. That, to me, is unacceptable.â€
Didn’t Gore do the same in AIT ?
No. Gore presented a pretty accurate picture of the science at the time AIT was made. That’s what the real scientists say (not Monckton).
The politics make me weary, not cloud my view. I would say you should pay more attention to the political side of this issue.
I will be paying close attention to the climate policies of NZ political parties in the run-up to the election, but I will be trying to take an even-handed look at their relevance and likely effectiveness rather than running them through any ideological mangle.
I did NOT label you at all for your view. The facism was refering to your seemingly diswant for the other side of the argument to be heard via the media.
I’m very happy for “the other side” to be heard in the media (and they seem to have no trouble getting exposure), but they should not be allowed to get away with telling porkies.
Climate CHANGE may indeed be real we just differ in our beliefs on the cause. And trying to scare people into submission is not the answer. Hence the term alarmist.
The facts are alarming enough, without embellishing them. Another ice shelf gone? We could really do with some global cooling – but it ain’t happening.
Andrew W:
“Oh, so you are talking about the segment that Cindy linked to above, you have some problem with it?”
Yes I do, and what, you never picked up on that.
“The Telegraph and WSJ, along with certain blogs, seem to be your main source of information”
Wrong, if you don’t believe me maybe you could provide a list for me.
“In the ABC segment Singer’s true colours were revealed by himself.”
In your opinion.
“was what made Singer look really, really arrogant, stupidly pig headed and totally unscientific in his approach”
Again, in your opinion. He believes what he believes just like you, I or anyone else. He’s been around a lot longer than us and is probably more wise and knows this stuff better than you or I.
“And I will add that this attitude is almost universal amongst denialists (and extreme alarmists), it’s a clear sign that ideology has swept away scientific objectivity.”
This statement could easily apply to the pro AGW side.
Gareth:
“No. Gore presented a pretty accurate picture of the science at the time AIT was made.”
Cop out. If you dispise the word ‘lied’ (just like Dubya on WMD’s) he intentionally ‘mislead’ the viewer. A fact that was backed up by a UK court.
“but they should not be allowed to get away with telling porkies”
Again, so why should this only apply to skeptics ?
“The facts are alarming enough, without embellishing them. Another ice shelf gone? We could really do with some global cooling – but it ain’t happening.”
To you and your like maybe, but to me and others like myself we’re looking at a different picture.
As for the ice shelf, just another example of unprofessional non-journalistic sensationalism. I’m sure I don’t need to spell it out for you as you are probably fully aware of how irrelevant this breakage is when put in it’s full context. I’d say the important part is what was left out of the article.
“We could really do with some global cooling”
Soon my friend, soon.
“but it ain’t happening.”
Again, depends on whose data you rely on. The argos buoys show no ocean temperature rise since deployment in 2003. 30 odd satellites back that up as far as the ocean releasing heat into the atmosphere goes.
Bat:
The UK judge expressly cleared Gore’s film for showing in schools. The science it contains is pretty accurate. Ask a scientist, not Monckton.
What’s the “full context” for the ice-shelf break up bat? Plan to mention “record sea ice”? Be warned – Antarctic sea ice is something completely different.
You are also showing that you don’t understand either the Argos data (which remains provisional) or the satellite data.
As for cooling versus warming – care to put your money where your mouth is? I’ll happily bet $20 on you being wrong. Tamino outlines acceptable terms here.
Gareth : The judge also expressly instructed that the viewers of AIT were to be told of the contential erros.
As for the ice shelf, look it up if you really don’t know. And no, there wasn’t to be any mention of sea ice.
“You are also showing that you don’t understand either the Argos data (which remains provisional) or the satellite data.”
How could I possibly when the ‘scientists’ don’t even understand it. But is that just because it doesn’t fit with their model projections ? I bet it would be completely understod had it showed a warming !!
I’ll gladly take your money. lol
Isn’t Tamino the one who keeps trying to breathe new life into Manns’ limp hockey stick and has been continually had his rants debunked by the guys at Climateaudit.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2352
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828
Andrew: “The Telegraph and WSJ, along with certain blogs, seem to be your main source of informationâ€
bat: “Wrong, if you don’t believe me maybe you could provide a list for me.”
I don’t need to list them bat, if I just wait a while you do it for me.
Bat: re Antarctic
Not my job to do your research. If you think there’s some context for the Wilkins break up that isn’t related to the reasons given by the scientists studying the event, then please post it here.
Re Gore. The judge asked for changes to the teacher notes that accompanied the film. If that denier favourite “The Great Global Warming Swindle” were held to the same standard, it would never have been shown. (And there’s a TV standards judgement due in the UK soon, IIRC).
Some very shrewd learning there, Cindy, Oreskes would know..
With politics the road to power, science is gamed.. one reason why no one but no will ever take the gamers seriously..
And, Cindy, does that hack them off!