Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist

[Stalin]

A good example of how a lie can travel around the world before the truth has got out of bed.

"For climate sceptics it was a key piece of evidence showing that the scientists behind global warming could not be trusted. A quotation by one of the world's most eminent climate scientists was supposed to demonstrate the depths to which he and his ilk would stoop to create scare stories exaggerating the threat of global warming.

Sir John Houghton, who played a critical role in establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), was roundly condemned after it emerged that he was an apparent advocate of scary propaganda to frighten the public into believing the dangers of global warming.

"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen," Sir John was supposed to have said in 1994.

The quotation has since become the iconic smoking gun of the climate sceptic community. The words are the very first to appear in the "manual" of climate denialism written by the journalist and arch-sceptic Christopher Booker. They get more than a million hits on Google, and are wheeled out almost every time a climate sceptic has a point to make, the last occasion being in a Sunday newspaper article last weekend written by the social anthropologist and climate sceptic Benny Peiser.

The trouble is, Sir John Houghton has never said what he is quoted as saying. The words do not appear in his own book on global warming, first published in 1994, despite statements to the contrary. In fact, he denies emphatically that he ever said it at any time, either verbally or in writing.

In fact, his view on the matter of generating scare stories to publicise climate change is quite the opposite. "There are those who will say 'unless we announce disasters, no one will listen', but I'm not one of them," Sir John told The Independent.

"It's not the sort of thing I would ever say. It's quite the opposite of what I think and it pains me to see this quote being used repeatedly in this way. I would never say we should hype up the risk of climate disasters in order to get noticed," he said.

Even though the quotation appears on about 1.77 million web links, no one seems to know where it originated. On the few occasions a reference is cited, it is listed as coming from the first edition of Sir John's book, Global Warming: The Complete Briefing, published by Lion Books in 1994. But Sir John does not say it in this edition, nor in subsequent editions published by Cambridge University Press.

Christopher Booker, a newspaper columnist, considers the quotation so important that he lists it at the top of the first page of his most recent book on climate scepticism, The Real Global Warming Disaster, published last year. Mr Booker also cites the 1994 edition of Houghton's own book on global warming as the source of the quotation, even though there is no mention of it there. Mr Booker did not respond yesterday to enquiries by The Independent.

Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, also cited the 1994 edition of Sir John's book as the source of the quote, which he used last Sunday in an article denouncing the alarmism of climate scientists. Dr Peiser admitted to The Independent that he had not read the book recently and had only used the quote "from memory" because it is so widely cited in other books on climate scepticism.

"I've seen it printed in many books. He is well known for making these statements. I've used that quote on many occasions from one of the books on climate alarmism. If he makes the claim that he never said this then he has to clarify that," Dr Peiser said.

more at http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...d-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html

Comrade Stalin

 

[Little-Acorn]

Dozens of quotes from the emails produced by an IPCC whislteblower, have been used to discredit the shenanigans of the so-called "scientists" who pushed Global Whatever so hard. Not just one.

Better luck next time, "Comrade".

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Clipped from your post: The trouble is, Sir John Houghton has never said what he is quoted as saying. The words do not appear in his own book on global warming, first published in 1994, despite statements to the contrary. In fact, he denies emphatically that he ever said it at any time, either verbally or in writing.

Interesting isn't it...how tricky that misquote thing can be! Seems as though we have several around here that love pasting quotes from famous people into their signatures and they could give a sh!t whether or not they get it correct/whether or not it's factual...but seems as though several of those misinformed mental midgets are the same ones that DON'T UNDERSTAND about GLOBAL WARMING.

The; "hey, if it ain't happen right here in my back yard...there ain't no such thing as GLOBAL WARMING...no, sir...no, way" Lordy, lordy, lordy...someone put those mental midgets on your prayer list...PLEASE!

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Dozens of quotes from the emails produced by an IPCC whislteblower, have been used to discredit the shenanigans of the so-called "scientists" who pushed Global Whatever so hard. Not just one.

Better luck next time, "Comrade".

That government is best that governs least, because its people discipline themselves. - T. Jefferson

BINGO!!! Perfect example

 

[dogtowner]

Dozens of quotes from the emails produced by an IPCC whislteblower, have been used to discredit the shenanigans of the so-called "scientists" who pushed Global Whatever so hard. Not just one.

Better luck next time, "Comrade".

a common diversionary tactic. actually don't think I'd even heard that one or even of this character.

 

[Little-Acorn]

a common diversionary tactic. actually don't think I'd even heard that one or even of this character.

They're getting desperate. More and more facts are being exposed about theri agenda, and they can't answer them. And they're scraping the bottom of the barrel, looking for diversions and distractions to take the heat off.

 

[dogtowner]

They're getting desperate. More and more facts are being exposed about theri agenda, and they can't answer them. And they're scraping the bottom of the barrel, looking for diversions and distractions to take the heat off.

You know its bad when India pulls out of IPCC, led by an Indian guy, because its unreliable. They see that as a major black eye against the country that they take justifiable pride in. But when the fellow accepts the lies regarding his own back yard then there's nothing left to do but throw him under the bus.

 

[Stalin]

Dozens of quotes from the emails produced by an IPCC whislteblower, have been used to discredit the shenanigans of the so-called "scientists" who pushed Global Whatever so hard. Not just one.

Better luck next time, "Comrade".

I do not use luck. I use data.

Speaking of data, a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate would be most helpful.

Comrade Stalin

 

[dogtowner]

I do not use luck. I use data.

Speaking of data, a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate would be most helpful.

Comrade Stalin

Everything you wanted to know on the matter

 

[Stalin]

An image of a book written by two literature majors does not constitute an argument. One smells an attempt to cash in on the gullible.

For your edification, I represent a New Scientist article which attempts to demonstrate some objectivity. Posted in full as you are most probably unlikely to read and digest the article.

"...We can be 100 per cent sure the world is getting warmer

Forget about the temperature records compiled by researchers such as those whose emails were hacked. Next spring, go out into your garden or the nearby countryside and note when the leaves unfold, when flowers bloom, when migrating birds arrive and so on. Compare your findings with historical records, where available, and you'll probably find spring is coming days, even weeks earlier than a few decades ago.

You can't fake spring coming earlier, or trees growing higher up on mountains, or glaciers retreating for kilometres up valleys, or shrinking ice cover in the Arctic, or birds changing their migration times, or permafrost melting in Alaska, or the tropics expanding, or ice shelves on the Antarctic peninsula breaking up, or peak river flow occurring earlier in summer because of earlier snowmelt, or sea level rising faster and faster, or any of the thousands of similar examples.

None of these observations by themselves prove the world is warming; they could simply be regional effects, for instance. But put all the data from around the world together, and you have overwhelming evidence of a long-term warming trend.

We know greenhouse gases are the main cause of warming

There are many ways, theoretically, to warm a planet. Orbital changes might bring it closer to its star. The star itself might brighten. The planet's reflectivity – albedo – can change if white ice is replaced by darker vegetation or water. Changes in composition of the atmosphere can trap more heat, and so on.

It could even be that Earth isn't really warming overall, just that there has been a transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere.

Researchers have to look at all of these factors. And they have. Direct measurements since the 1970s make it certain, for instance, that neither the sun's fluctuating brightness nor changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting Earth are responsible for the recent warming. Similarly, direct measurements over the past century show that the oceans have warmed dramatically. The planet as a whole is getting warmer.

That leaves the rising levels of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere – which have been directly measured – as the main suspects. Working out how these changes should affect the planet's temperature in theory is extremely complicated. The only way to do it is to plug all the detailed physics into computers – create computer models, in other words. The results show that the only factor that produces anything like the temperature rise seen is the observed increase in greenhouse gases.

How do we know the models aren't wrong? From studies of past climate. To take one example, ice cores drilled from the Antarctic ice-sheet show a surprisingly close correlation between greenhouse gas levels and temperature over the past 800,000 years.

During this time, greenhouse gases have never risen as high or as fast as they are now. That means there is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent of future warming – estimates of the effect of doubling CO2, including all feedback processes, range from 2°C to 6°C. But the big picture is clear.

Is it possible that tens of thousands of scientists have got it wrong? It is incredibly unlikely. The evidence that CO2 levels are rising is irrefutable, and the idea that rising levels lead to warming has withstood more than a century of genuine scientific scepticism.

So why are scientists "fixing" the temperature data?

Some of the contents of the hacked material, such as the "Harry_read_me.txt" file, might appear shocking, with its talk of manipulation and "tricks". But raw data almost always has to be "fixed".

For example, suppose you and your neighbour keep a record of the temperature where you live, and decide to combine your records to create an "official" record for your locality. When you compare records, however, you're surprised to find they are very different.

There are many reasons why this might be so. One or other thermometer might be faulty. Perhaps you placed your thermometer in an inherently warmer place, or where it was sometimes in direct sunshine, or took measurements at a different time of day, and so on. To combine the two records in any meaningful way, you'll need to adjust the raw data to account for any such factors.

Not doing so would be pretty dumb. Where possible, scientists should always look at their data in the context of other, comparable data. Such scrutiny can often reveal problems in the way one or other set of data was acquired, meaning it needs adjusting or discarding. Some apparent problems with the predictions of climate models, for example, have actually turned out to be due to problems with real-world data caused by the failure to correct for factors such as the gradual changes in orbits of satellites.

The tricky question is where to draw the line. There is a continuum from corrections based on known problems (essential), to adjustments based on probable errors in the data (good practice as long as all assumptions are made clear), to adjustments done solely to make the data fit a hypothesis (distinctly dodgy).

It remains to be seen if any of the adjustments described in the hacked material fall into this last category. But the mere fact that the leaked material reveals climate researchers "fixing" data is not proof of fraud. Manipulating data is what scientists do.

more on next post

 

[Stalin]

...continued...

But what about that "trick" to "hide the decline"?

One of the leaked emails refers the "trick" of adding the real temperatures, as recorded by thermometers, to reconstructions of past temperatures based on looking at things such as growth rings in trees.

The problem is that some sets of tree-ring data suggest temperatures start falling towards the end of the 20th century, which direct temperature measurements show was not the case. So the researchers instead replaced the reconstructed temperature data for this period with the directly measured temperature data.

Is this an unjustified "fix"? No, because some sets of tree-ring data can be compared with the direct records of local temperature for the past century. Up until the 1960s, there is a very close correlation between the density of growth rings in trees in northern latitudes and summer temperatures, but after this it starts to break down.

We don't know why. It might be that the correlation breaks down whenever it gets too hot, in which case reconstructions of past temperature that rely heavily on tree-ring data will give a misleading picture. Or it might be due to some factor unique to the 20th century, such as changes in the timing of the snow melt, in which case it will not affect reconstructions.

The issue has not yet been resolved but there has been no attempt to conceal this or any of the many other problems with temperature reconstructions. On the contrary, the head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, Phil Jones, and others have published papers discussing it in prominent journals such as Nature.

What really matters is not how hot it is now or how hot it was a few hundred years ago, but how hot it is going to get. Campaigners have highlighted temperature reconstructions like the "hockey stick" graph because they are easy for people to understand, but in scientific terms they are not of great significance. We know the world is warming and we know that the main cause is rising CO2 levels. So with CO2 levels rising ever faster, we can be sure things are going to get a lot hotter.

But surely any attempt to block publication of sceptical scientific papers is indefensible?

Some of the leaked emails reveal the climate researchers' unhappiness with the publication of certain scientific papers questioning the global warming consensus, and discuss removing journal editors they perceived as being sympathetic to global warming sceptics.

This sounds horrifying to some non-scientists. But many are confusing two very different things: attempting to block publication in certain scientific journals and the suppression of information.

Scientific journals are only supposed to publish papers that meet certain scientific standards. Researchers work for years on papers and then submit them to the top journals in their field. The editors select the ones they think are most important or noteworthy, and send them to a handful of reviewers - scientists working in the same areas. Each reviewer sends back a report suggesting acceptance, rejection or revisions, and the editor decides whether to publish based on these reports. Most papers sent to leading journals get rejected.

This system of "peer review" has its critics, but is generally regarded as the least-worst system to ensure the quality of published scientific research. Researchers whose work is rejected can resubmit their papers to other, less high-profile journals. Failing that, anyone is free to publish their views on global warming online, or in books and newspapers if they can.

Many leading scientists think that the papers mentioned in the emails had serious scientific flaws and possibly should not have been accepted by the journals in question. If this were the case, it would raise questions about the role of the editors at those journals. It is hardly outrageous behaviour to call for the replacement of people who are, in your personal view, not doing their jobs properly.

What about apparent attempts to avoid freedom of information requests?

In some emails, Jones – who has stepped down pending a review of what went on – discusses ways not to fulfil requests made under the UK's freedom of information laws. In one, he calls on other researchers to delete certain emails. While on the face of it this does not look good, whether any researchers broke any laws or breached any university guidelines remains to be determined.

In other cases, however, it is clear that researchers could not comply with freedom of information requests because they did not have the right to release all the data in question. There is also no doubt that climate change deniers have been using freedom of information requests to harass researchers and waste their time, with the CRU receiving more than 50 such requests in one week alone this year.

What's more, individual researchers have little to gain from giving away data and software they have spent years working on. Scientific careers depend on how many papers you publish. If you keep data to yourself, no one else can publish papers based on it before you do.

This does not mean researchers should be allowed to hold onto their data. It is undoubtedly in the public interest for there to be full disclosure of the measurements upon which climate scientists are basing their conclusions. In fact, much of it is already freely available. But the pressures climate researchers are under does help to explain why many are so reluctant to make all data public.

Clearly, the leaked emails have caused disquiet in some quarters. There's no doubt there are concerns about the content of some of the emails – even when you know the way science really works – as laid out above. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the University of East Anglia are now holding investigations to determine if anything unethical did go on. But nothing in them justifies claims of a massive conspiracy, or undermines the certainty about climate change and its causes.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...te-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html?full=true

Read more: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed : http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

Comrade Stalin

 

[MrSheepish]

Stalin, it is very nice to finally find someone else who is out to understand the facts rather than twist them into conspiracy theories. I have had my hands full with what little free time I have had responding to all kinds of false or distorted accusations on another thread here. No matter how many you deal with, there are always more, and sometimes the same ones repeat, as people forget or ignore the fact that these accusations have already been pointed out as lies. Thanks for stepping up!

 

[Stalin]

Thank you for your kind words.

I have many discussions with "skeptics" and one good test is how much actual science they know, or even if the have a degree in science which is usually accepted as a benchmark. This does not mean that people without a degree are not able to understand or comment, but is a good indicator.

But let us get serious.

Who would you want to fix your automobile electrix ?

A fully trained registered auto electrician or some guy who just picked up up by fiddling with cars ?

For the record, I have a degree in radiation chemistry including research initally started on a grant for the US air force.

Comrade Stalin

 

[Little-Acorn]

An image of a book written by two literature majors does not constitute an argument.

In other words, you have no response to the facts contained within, so you try to denigrate the source instead, while ignoring the contents completely.

I believe that takes care of your "I use data" fib.

At this point, I believe you could use some luck.

 

[Stalin]

In other words, you have no response to the facts contained within, so you try to denigrate the source instead, while ignoring the contents completely.

I believe that takes care of your "I use data" fib.

At this point, I believe you could use some luck.

Both of your beliefs are ill-founded.

Firstly, I do not have this book. I cannot get a copy for at least a few days, so I must rely on you to precis the arguments presented in the book.

I do hope you have read both the IPCC reports and this book and so can present a full summary of where the IPCC is wrong and where this book is correct. I would be very happy to read your analysis, but I suspect that I will wait in vain.

The IPCC reports are available from here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

Secondly, you have presented no "facts" yourself, merely an image of this book, and no links to a objective critique of any kind, or even any critique at all. Just an image of a book. Not good enough.

Facts, comrade, not ad hominem attacks are what win debates, at least in scientific circles; an idea you might consider.

Happy Reading !!

Comrade Stalin