Comments on: Savaged by a dead sheep #2

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:31:30 +0000

Hi there, just found this site on my travels looking into global warming. I was thinking about reading this book to confirm my suspicions. Your review confirmed my thoughts on it, denialist drivel. The big problem with Ian Wishart [among many] is that he is a fundamentalist so it’s just going to end up with him sticking his fingers in his ears, blinkers closed completely and singing ‘LALALALALA’ at the top of his voice.

By: Gareth

Gareth — Tue, 26 May 2009 07:13:49 +0000

Is he culpable for failing to check for updates since late 2008? Thatâ€™s marginal, in my opinion.

Given that he wrote the Investigate piece relatively recently, you might think he would have checked before rushing to criticise my understanding of the facts of the matter. Nor can you excuse him for a naive interpretation of a wiggle in a longer time series — but as he subscribes to the “cooling since 200x” nonsense, we shouldn’t be surprised.

By: Mark H

Mark H — Tue, 26 May 2009 01:17:28 +0000

Ian Wishart is quoted above as saying that he was relying on data published in late 2008. At the moment the University of Colorado time series (and the corresponding CSIRO one) end at approximately 1 Jan 2009, ie. almost 6 months ago. The UC series was last updated on 12 March. The release schedule is not regular, but there are 2-4 releases per year. So at any given time, the time series will show data up to 3-6 months before present, maybe more.

In late 2008, depending on the exact date, the plot would have shown data to early or mid 2008, and may well have appeared to supported his claim. Is he culpable for failing to check for updates since late 2008? That’s marginal, in my opinion. However, once his attention is drawn to the updated data, he should of course correct his earlier statements.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Mon, 25 May 2009 23:08:52 +0000

Looking at the graph, it’s been about a year since any claim of a short-term reduction could be made. That’s evidence of a complete failure to check facts.

By: Mark H

Mark H — Mon, 25 May 2009 22:07:30 +0000

And I’m guilty of inadequate proof reading of my own posts!

By: Mark H

Mark H — Mon, 25 May 2009 22:06:55 +0000

To be fair to Ian Wishart, the graph he’s basing his conclusions on probably isn’t very out of date. Some time recently (I think it was in Morgan & McCrystal’s book) I say a graph of sea level from the satellites that stopped some time around the middle of 2008 and did look very much as if the trend had flattened abruptly at 2005. Now with another 6 months or so of data this flattening of the trend has evaporated (as Steve Bloom has pointed out).

What Ian Wishart is guilty of is wishful thinking and paying too much attention to short-term fluctuations. And maybe one or two other things…

By: Bryan Walker

Bryan Walker — Mon, 25 May 2009 07:14:42 +0000

Very loosely attached to the topic, but it looks as if at least oneWishart supporter may be going through the select committee submissions. I received an email out of the blue two or three days ago from someone who said he had read my submission and suggested I read Air Con “a fantastic book by New Zealand’s leading investigative journalist” – and here’s the surprise – “because it confirms in detail your submission and expands on the same thinking”!!! I told him that he obviously hadn’t read my submission, which was the direct opposite of Wishart’s fevered fantasies (which I have read).

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Mon, 25 May 2009 04:39:22 +0000

Oops, typed too fast: The ARGO and XBT problems actually implicated the related factor of upper ocean heat content.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Mon, 25 May 2009 04:29:01 +0000

Like so many denialists. Wishart got all excited by that recent 18 months of a flattish trend (which the imbroglio with the erroneous ARGO and XBT data made look like a decrease before the errors were caught and fixed). Also, the data shown by this graph is limited to just the two satellite instruments and so doesn’t catch the longer-term increase in the rate.

By: StephenR

StephenR — Mon, 25 May 2009 03:50:18 +0000

HAHA, a truffle growers’ cabal aiming for world domination, I wuz right!