September 1, 2010

1 Comment »

1. DC,I think you should do a criiuqte of the Pearce Piece that Abdreas kindly linked us to I just posted this at NewScientist: Fred,This piece, (like your gross misrepresentation of Mojib Latif’s speech at the third World Climate Conference in 2009), is riddled with errors. Not to mention clearly being sympathetic towards the skeptics and being uncritical of the nefarious actions of the people like Mosher, McIntyre and Curry. These people want the best of both worlds, they attack, slander and defame climate scientists and then at the same time expect to be treated with respect and claim to want to reconcile . This is nothing but PR campaign by the skeptics Fred, and I’m sad to see that it seems you have bought it hook-line and sinker.Some points, there were probably not 28 climate scientists at the conference. Do you consider Goddard a climate scientist? McIntyre is not a statistician by training. You misrepresented Dr. Gavin Schmidt’s position on attending the conference (go to Eli Rabett’s place for clarification) it seems that you did not solicit his opinion before writing this. The workshop was also financed by the Gulbenkian Foundation do some research on them Fred, they have ties to big oil.The scientific literature has shown again and again that the observed warming can not be explained by ENSO or PDO or other internal climate modes, because they simply move heat around in the system. Trenberth et al. (2002, JGR) showed that +0.06 C of the +0.4 C warming (about 15%) observed between 1950 and 1998 was attributable to trends in ENSO.These internal climate modes are internal drivers which can act to mute or enhance the underlying warming trend from higher CO2, they cannot and do not explain the fact that the planet is in a net positive energy imbalance (Murphy et al. 2009). How can the climate scientists you and the skeptics are chastising be indifferent to these internal climate modes and oscillations when they have published papers specifically to investigate their role? Please think about this the skeptics love to make unsubstantiated and unsupported claims, because they know they cannot back them up. What does count in this game of skeptics is rhetoric, innuendo and opinions, not facts.This is yet another astounding example of the media failing us. To say I am disappointed by your partisan and uncritical and error riddled piece would be a gross understatement.I would complain to your editors, but previous experience has shown me that NewScientist has no interest in acknowledging or retracting errors on the climate file, especially it seems when those errors are made by you.For what it is worth I urge you to please correct the errors pointed out to you here and to revise or retract your piece. Thank you.

   Comment by Awais — May 15, 2013 @ 5:25 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment