Category: Climate cranks

Savaged by a dead sheep #2

Airconcover.jpgIn a meeting last week a late arrival strode in and announced (with a big grin) “You’ve finally made it, Gareth, you’ve been attacked by Ian Wishart.” It appears that my review of Air Con rattled Wishart sufficiently to prompt him to pen an attack on me in his conspiracy magazine Investigate. Over the weekend he helpfully posted what he calls the “salient” bits at his blog under the title More idiocy from the team at Hot Topic. Saves me from having to buy a copy…

Wishart’s main claim is that the evidence I submitted to the ETS Review committee was out of date before it was given, and to prove his point he quotes extensively from his own book. That was a major tactical error on his part, because it gives me an opportunity to demonstrate (once again) that Air Con is full of misrepresentations and inaccuracies.

Continue reading “Savaged by a dead sheep #2”

Bear necessities

Polarbear.jpgScientific papers are often dull, worthy screeds, difficult to read and hard to understand without considerable effort, but sometimes they are an absolute pleasure. I can heartily recommend Amstrup et al. Rebuttal of “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit”, Interfaces (2009) pp. 1-17 [PDF, Woods Hole press release] as a fine example of clarity and concision — and a classic slap down of “researchers” who haven’t taken the trouble to understand what they’re writing about. The rebuttal is of a paper by Armstrong, Green and Soon (AGS) (Armstrong et al. Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit, Interfaces (2008) pp. 382-405 [PDF]) in the same journal last year. AGS was highly critical of two US Geological Survey papers that were instrumental in persuading the authorities to list polar bears as an endangered species. The AGS “audit” paper is extensively quoted in Ian Wishart’s Air Con, in the chapter where he explains why the bears aren’t in trouble, so by way of correction (because you won’t be getting one from him), here’s what Amstrup et al have to say…

Continue reading “Bear necessities”

Missing the point by miles

I have been steering clear of Wishart-related material for the last week or two (on the “wrestling with pigs” principle), but I can’t let this post at his blog pass without comment. It begins:

In the climate debate, we can choose to listen to truffle fanciers like Gareth at Hot Topic, journalists like myself or politicians like Al Gore, or one of the leading scientists in the climate field, like Roy Spencer from University of Alabama-Huntsville. The following is a fascinating essay from his blogsite, which backs up the central thesis in Air Con – most of the CO2 increase is natural, not man-made:

He then reposts Spencer’s blog item in full, adding in the comments:

Spencer’s study suggests strong evidence that oceanic CO2 is the primary driver of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. (Looking at the graphs, very strong evidence).

Not a squeak out of Hot Topic and no one posting here challenges it.

Notice how a blog post became a “study”? Ah well, here’s a squeak…

Continue reading “Missing the point by miles”

Polar journey

Poles Apart: The Great Climate Change DebatePerhaps the most interesting thing about Gareth Morgan’s Poles Apart is the process he used to arrive at his opinion: using two “teams” of experts — three of NZ’s leading scientists against the pick of the climate cranks — to provide advice. The Science Media Centre has just posted an interesting article by the New Zealand trio, all based at the Antarctic Research Centre at Victoria University — Dr Dave Lowe, Adjunct Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry, Dr Lionel Carter, Professor of Marine Geology and Dr Peter Barrett, Professor of Geology, discussing their experiences while working on Morgan’s project. And, with the kind permission of the SMC, I’m delighted to reproduce the article here.

***

In mid 2007 Peter Barrett and wife were invited to dinner at the Morgans to talk about their upcoming Antarctic trip. Late in the evening Gareth mentioned an idea he had for a book on climate change to sort out the range of views he was seeing in the press.

Two weeks later Peter received a two-page 9-chapter outline for comment. It covered everything from: “What is Climate Change” to “What should New Zealanders do about it”, and the words “need a well-formed scientific perspective” appeared in several places.

Peter’s initial response was “Thanks…need a bit more time..”. Through the rest of the year Gareth motor-biked from Cape Town to London (among other things), and by the following January, Gareth had in hand a substantial report on why climate change was no cause for concern from a climate “Sceptic”. The book was plainly under way and it was time for some balance. Peter suggested a small group to cover what we considered the mainstream view. This would be led by recently retired atmospheric chemist Dave Lowe and include marine geologist Lionel Carter, who had recently moved to VUW. Gareth agreed, and that’s where the story really begins.

Continue reading “Polar journey”

Heaven is a place on earth

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science

The Australian twin to Wishart’s Air Con is Professor Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science, published last month. According to Bob Carter (in all his oleaginous glory here) on Leighton Smith’s Newstalk ZB programme recently it’s “an excellent book”. Carter assures Smith that “the authoritative science is in Ian Plimer’s book”. Fortunately, to save Hot Topic the chore of wading through Plimer’s prose, The Australian (noted for a tendency to push crank arguments) has published a most interesting review of Plimer’s opus by Michael Ashley, a professor of astrophysics at the University of New South Wales. What does he make of Plimer’s “authoritative science”?

Perhaps we will find a stitch-by-stitch demolition of climate science in his book, as promised? No such luck. The arguments that Plimer advances in the 503 pages and 2311 footnotes in Heaven and Earth are nonsense. The book is largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere. The writing is rambling and repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical.

Just like Wishart then.

Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not “merely” atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer’s book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken.

[Hat tip: Deltoid]
See also; Prof Barry Brooke’s review of Plimer’s book.
[Belinda Carlisle]