De klimaatgekte bereikt weer een kookpunt. Maar klimaatprofessional Judith Curry kiest kant van David Rose.
De klimaatsoap gaat maar door! Eerder rapporteerde ik over een artikel van David Rose in de 'Sunday Mail' over de stabilisering van de gemiddelde wereldtemperatuur over de laatste 16 jaar. Dat had hij nou niet mogen schrijven (en ik natuurlijk ook niet)… volgens vele klimaatalarmisten. Dat is ketterij! Zij vielen – voorspelbaar – en masse over hem heen. Volgens hen verspreidde hij leugens en liep hij aan de leiband van de 'Global Warming Policy Foundation' (GWPF) – oei! Ook de reguliere kritische respondenten op mijn blog hebben zich in dezelfde geest uitgelaten.
In een nieuw artikel reageert David Rose op al die ongein:
Ik pik er een aantal citaten uit:
Last week The Mail on Sunday provoked an international storm by publishing a new official world temperature graph showing there has been no global warming since 1997.
The figures came from a database called Hadcrut 4 and were issued by the Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University.
We received hundreds of responses from readers, who were overwhelmingly critical of those climate change experts who believe that global warming is inevitable.
But the Met Office, whose lead was then followed by climate change campaigners, accused The Mail on Sunday of cherry-picking data in order to mislead readers. It even claimed it had not released a ‘report’, as we had stated, although it put out the figures from which we drew our graph ten days ago. ...
Another critic said that climate expert Professor Judith Curry had protested at the way she was represented in our report. However, Professor Curry, a former US National Research Council Climate Research Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers, responded: ‘A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s statement … effectively refutes Mr Rose’s argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years.
‘Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the “pause”.’
The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: ‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’
Here, we answer some of the key questions on climate change – and invite readers to make their own choice. ...
En zo gaat Rose door, waarbij hij ook de implicaties van deze bevindingen voor het Britse energiebeleid belicht. D.w.z. ophouden met die windmolenonzin, hetgeen natuurlijk heftig wordt bestreden door de lobby daarachter, die talloze sleutelposities bekleedt in de belangrijkste organen die de Britse regering daarover adviseren
Lees verder hier.
Maar wat zegt de klimaatprofessional, Judith Curry, daarvan? Heeft David Rose haar commentaren verdraaid, zoals sommige critici hebben beweerd? Nee, dat blijkt niet het geval te zijn. Op haar blog reageert Judith Curry uitvoerig op al deze commotie. Ik pik er een aantal elementen uit.
I think that David Rose’s 2nd article is well done. He lays out the arguments that the other ‘side’ is making, and provides his response. It is a reasonable portrayal of the debate surrounding this issue. …
This whole situation is a very interesting example of the interplay betweeen the MSM, the blogosphere and twitter. The MSM goes with a provocative headline. There is more detailed analysis and broader discussion in the blogs. And there is a cacophony of barking tweets from both sides.
The ‘facts’, such as they exist, are the data; in this case the latest release of HADCRUT4. This is new data, so people haven’t yet had much time to analyze and interpret it. However these data end up being analyzed, the trend since 1997 is very small, much smaller than the decadal trend of 0.2C that we have been led to expect by the IPCC for the early part of the 21st century. The whole issue of cherry picking start and end dates is a red herring, as I’ve argued in my previous post Trends, change points and hypotheses. It depends on what hypothesis you are trying to test. If you are using data to evaluate the IPCC’s projection of 0.2C/decade warming in the first two decades of the 21st century, with plateaus or pauses at most of 15-17 yrs duration, well then you can pick whatever start date you want. …
The Guardian makes the point that they don’t want scientists to go back into the ivory tower if their views are misrepresented. In fact, that is exactly what I did after the infamous brain fossilization incident. Which scientists do reporters choose to talk to, and why? The answers to this are probably all over the map, varying with the story and with the reporter. For better or worse, I’ve put myself out there as being willing to talk to reporters (after brain fossilization and heretic, I now have the hide of an armadillo). I’m prepared to work with reporters on their articles. This time, David Rose sent me my quotes in advance, along with the content surrounding them; I made a few minor changes to make the message more clear and more accurate and he incorporated these changes verbatim in the article.
The bottom line for me is that David Rose’s article has stimulated an interesting debate on an important and controversial topic. These exchanges in the MSM, blogosphere and twitosphere have hopefully enlightened and provoked critical thinking amongst the group that pays most attention to these things. Of course both sides are using this exchange in the MSM to ‘keep score’ in the climate wars, where the casualty tends to be honest debate.
Zie verder hier.
Kortom, volgens Judith Curry heeft David Rose een uitstekend artikel geschreven. Daar sluit ik mij graag bij aan.