Change font size
It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:50 pm


Forum lockedPost a reply Page 1 of 8   [ 115 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Right of reply
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:23 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
To the great Monbiot, The Guardian has given me right of reply. The comments are open on the piece - it will be interesting to see how the debate develops.

IF YOU POST A COMMENT ON THE SITE, PLEASE ALSO POST IT HERE .. SO WE CAN SEE WHAT IS SAYS IF IT DELETED BY THE MODERATORS.

View full article here

These are my first offerings:

29 Jul 2010, 12:56PM

Richard North, responding as "spacedout" - just so that there is no misunderstanding.

ARebours @ 29 Jul 2010, 12:30PM. Please do me the courtesy of reading the piece ... the IPCC referenced the WWF review ... the reference to the IPAM work was omitted - accidentally, maybe but, as printed, the WWF Rowell and Moore claim was unreferenced.

When we take the IPAM reference which the WWF says applies, this is the IPAM website, which is unsubstantiated claims, with no references. Thus, as stated, the WWF report IS unreferenced. This is FACT - yet your head round it.

Further, it is FACT, that the IPAM "report" is unreferenced. Not incorrectly referenced. As to the stand first ... the IPCC report ... you can be pedantic .. and say it was referenced to Rowell and Moore ... but we are not talking about incorrect referencing here. Rowell and Moore was unreferenced.

As to why the Sunday Times report was retracted, you do not KNOW why it was reported. You might THINK you know, but you do not actually know. I have a fair idea, which is why I have made a complaint about the Sunday Times to the PCC. You do not know what went on - don't pretend you do.

29 Jul 2010, 1:19PM

jjc100 @ 29 Jul 2010, 12:31PM

I have no issue about Simon Lewis being misquoted in The Sunday Times ... if you read between the lines, you will find that Jonathan Leake has no issue either. The piece he wrote annd agreed with Lewis was not the piece that was published ... that is a matter of public record.

The issue I have is the retraction - and the comment following - stating that the IPCC claim is supported by peer reviewed scientific literature. It is not. Thus, my ojections are set out in my own complaint to the PCC - that is 42 PAGES, linked here.

29 Jul 2010, 1:32PM

jjc100 @ 29 Jul 2010, 1:21PM, asks:

"So Richard, tell us, what was the PCC's reaction to Dr Lewis's submission?"

Initially, we know that it entertained the complaint as one which fell within the Editors' Code of Practice. As far as I understand it, the PCC mediated but did not then adjudicate, leaving The Sunday Times to make its own accommodation with Lewis.

As it stands, the PCC have entertained my complaint and are investigating it.

By the way, why is it "Dr Lewis", while I am "Richard" (not that I mind) and not Dr North? Have we been introduced? Are we friends?


29 Jul 2010, 1:45PM

alanww @ 29 Jul 2010, 1:35PM asks:

"When it's all unraveled, is there or isn't there a "proper" research paper at the bottom of it all ?"

No, there is not. There is nothing specifically, or even by inference, to support the claim that 40 percent of the entire rainforest could be turned into savannah or some such (i,e, destroyed) by a slight reduction in rainfall.

The best that can be offered is modellers' assumptions, that if there is a substantial fall off in rainfall, than the forest will be affected - hardly a matter of dispute ... if A happens, B is the result.

However, a growing body of evidence, not least this, suggests that the projections are unduly pessimistic.

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Right of reply
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:06 pm 

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 6700
While you're obviously enjoying yourself taking on all comers, I hope this doesn't mean you've ducked the libel case?

_________________
If you don't get grumpy as you grow older then you aren't paying attention


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Right of reply
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:17 pm 
A nice piece, well written and succint. I realise (and I am sure you also do) there will be a core of green fanatics who will not consider any view other than their own (and it must give you great pleasure to have published such a piece on 'their' website) but for the casual / interested browser reading your piece side by side with Monbiots I'd imagine will find yours the more rational of the two.

I must disagree with the previous poster. Life's too short to waste in libel courts, and you have been given the chance to put your side of the argument forward. We need your not inconsiderable research and analytical skills working on new topics to help keep us informed via your blog!


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Right of reply
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:01 pm 
I notice the at the egregious onthefence (sic) is there as always. I remember some suggestion that onthefence might be Monbiot himself but I don't know if there was any actual evidence for that idea, other than onthefence only ever commented on CAGW threads and almost entirely on Monbiot's pieces.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Right of reply
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:11 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
artwest wrote:
I notice the at the egregious onthefence (sic) is there as always. I remember some suggestion that onthefence might be Monbiot himself but I don't know if there was any actual evidence for that idea, other than onthefence only ever commented on CAGW threads and almost entirely on Monbiot's pieces.


Response to one of onthefence pieces:

29 Jul 2010, 3:07PM

onthefence @ 29 Jul 2010, 2:43PM asserts that "Nepstad seems to have some evidence".

In the first instance, Nespstad is not the author of the IPCC report. and nor is he an author of the Rowell & Moore paper. Thus, while he might assert that the "citations listed in the Rowell and Moore report were incomplete ", that is not an assertion made by the WWF speaking on behalf of the authors. The WWF in its own statement reply entirely on IPAM 1999, which turns out to be the website.

As to Nepstad's papers, I make a thorough analysis of these in my PCC complaint. His work (and the citations he variously offers) almost entirely relates to severe and/or prolonged drought, and to increased risk (but not the actuality) of fire. His only scenario which deals with slight drop in rainfall is posited on the basis of that reduction occurring over and above a pre-exisisting drought. This is not the scenario claimed by the IPCC.

Nepstad, therefore, is not in a position to claim that the IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct, other than as an unsubstantiated assertion. To date, with every opportunity to do so, he has not offered a single paper which supports the IPCC claim.

That notwithstanding, whether the IPCC claim is correct or not, it is unsubstantiated ... a point he effectively endorses by saying that the citations ... were incomplete. But even then, he gets that wrong on two counts. The plural is a singular - the authors intended only one citation - and then, that citation was not "incomplete". It was completely missing. And when it was "found", it did not support the IPCC claim and itself was unsupported.

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Right of reply
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:02 pm 

Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:47 pm
Posts: 4434
I think we should ask Buff-huhne, the minister ( God help us all), for a fair and balanced opinion.........


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Right of reply
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:05 pm 

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:59 pm
Posts: 1862
zeleneye says:

Quote:
"Surely it is the core point? i.e. The conclusion on the impacts to the Amazon in the IPCC 4AR is effectively correct."


What is the conclusion the IPCC make regarding the Amazon?

First read 13.7 Conclusions and implications for sustainable development

Then read 13.8 Key uncertainties and investigation priorities

Much of the conjecture in 13.7 is based on sparse knowledge that is constantly being refined or overturned by further investigation, and on computer models that have no predictive worth. Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change says.

Quote:
"I have often seen references to predictions of future climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), presumably through the IPCC assessments (the various chapters in the recently completedWorking Group I Fourth Assessment report ican be accessed through this listing). In fact, since the last report it is also often stated that the science is settled or done and now is the time for action.

In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.

Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized."


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Right of reply
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:55 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Yea ... that is good stuff ... but they can't handle it on the site - you just watch the thread degenerate before your eyes, off topic and ad hominem. You can only walk away ... absolutely no point in engaging.

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Right of reply
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:33 pm 
CheshireRed
29 Jul 2010, 7:44PM

From the generously-sized nature of what appears suspiciously like a Guardian 'right to reply' article, I conclude that Dr Richard North has delivered a rather sound spanking to the posterior of a certain, rather naughty Mr Moonbat.

Thwack! Ouch!!

Recommend? (11)
--------------------------------------
Thought I'd drop em a line Dr N.

Do keep up your brilliant work fella. You, Booker, Dellers. Most excellent all round.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Right of reply
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:00 pm 
cannaman
29 Jul 2010, 10:50PM
ecocampaigner,

It would be nice to think that spacedout was wrong to claim that he is Richard North in his first email of the day and that he had not continued in that vein throughout the day with such posts as :

spacedout's comment 29 Jul 10, 1:32pm (about 9 hours ago)

jjc100 @ 29 Jul 2010, 1:21PM, asks:

"So Richard, tell us, what was the PCC's reaction to Dr Lewis's submission?"

Initially, we know that it entertained the complaint as one which fell within the Editors' Code of Practice. As far as I understand it, the PCC mediated but did not then adjudicate, leaving The Sunday Times to make its own accommodation with Lewis.

As it stands, the PCC have entertained my complaint and are investigating it.

By the way, why is it "Dr Lewis", while I am "Richard" (not that I mind) and not Dr North? Have we been introduced? Are we friends?

Frankly speaking, it would be even nicer if the same persons history did not include the following post ;

spacedout's comment 26 Jun 10, 7:30pm

Dear Mr cannaman @ 26 Jun 2010, 7:06PM:

You should know that your High Priests allow for only one "mistake" in your creed - the holy Himalayas exaggeration. Despite the seventy or so questionable issues in the IPCC report, including the holy hockey stick debacle, you are not permitted to admit any greater fault.

However, if you choose to allow for a "couple" of "errors", at least don't insult your own intelligence by calling them "reference errors". Not even warmists are so thick as to believe that any more.

and even :

spacedout's comment 26 Jun 10, 10:39am

The Science says ...

And there you have the warmists is all their arrogance. But this isn't "science" talking ... it is Lewis talking. Sicence doesn't "say" anything, and neither is it an absolute ... as we see here:

.... the 40% figure comes from several other papers by the same author that the WWF failed to cite.

So the WWF paper failed to cite not just one but several papers. What's this about once being unfortunate but twice being careless? Dear me ... WWF careless? Is this what "the science says".

And when "science" gets off its arse and stops being careless, what do we find? Hey! The science isn't science after all - it is Mr Nepstad of Woods Hole Research Centre - trading partner to WWF and collaborator in a multi-billion dollar scheme to monetize the Amazon Rainforest through selling carbon credits.

So, if we want to be pedantic, this is not "science" talking, but money talking. And what does "money" say? .... er

"Well chaps, we can's actually find any peer-reviewed stuff that says "40 percent of the Amazon forest may be drastically altered by even a slight drop in precitation" ... so we'll fudge it, and all our little warmist friends will pile in with their ad hominem and invective and confuse the issue.

So we have Nepsgtand's 1994 paper whch" estimated that around half of the Amazonian forests lost large portions of their available soil moisture during drought (Nepstad 1994)."

Does this satisfy the three key points which make up the IPCC assertion? Does it cover the Amazon? Well, sort of, only he's pushing it applying local data to the whole basin. Are we talking about "drastic" change? Er ... not specifically ... just loss of soil moisture. Are we talking about "slight" drop in precipitation? Er ... no. Scratch Nepstad 1994 ... irrelevant.

But what about Nepstad 2004? "New rainfall data showed that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die". Are we referring to a "slight drop in precipitation"? And evidence that, as a result of the death of trees (projected) that we get savannahisation, as opposed to the dozens of papers that says that the forest recovers, even after total clearance? Er ... no. Scratch Nepstad 2005 ... irrelevant.

So what have we got? Nothing ... rien ... nada ... SFA. But the moeny says "the results from these papers are consistent with the original statement that 'Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall". Well, the money would say that wouldn't it. But the science doesn't.

---------

Sorry, it is not peer reviewed but it is all available in the Guardian archives. :-)


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Right of reply
PostPosted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:24 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Great fun ... what is it with cannaman ?

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Right of reply
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:23 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:46 am
Posts: 2153
Location: Pembrokeshre
My contribution to the debate:

Quote:
This episode is about honesty and whether it is possible to trust the conclusions of the IPCC AR4 report to be an impartial, honest and objective assessment of the science of climate change. After the IPCC wrote AR4 the UN called the world together together to attend a series of conferences, such as the one in Copenhagen seven months ago. We were told that the earth is warming because of AGW and if we do not change our ways 40% of the Amazon will change to savannah and the Himalayan glaciers (on which one billion people depend for water) will be reduced to nothing in 30 years time.

Himalayagate and Amazongate has exposed how the IPCC, under the chairmanship of Pachauri, has failed to do the work it was asked to do in a thorough or impartial way. In fact it has been demonstrated that they lifted many of their conclusions in AR4 have little scientific basis, they were quotes from the websites of advocacy groups.

The big story is not the errors in the report, every document that relies on original research, whether it is written by the IPCC, Monbiot or Richard North will include some innocent errors. The big story is the cover-up of the errors:

Pachauri, the cahirman odf teh IPCC, continued to vilify the scientists who disagreed with his report conclusions that the Himalaya glaciers were on the verge of disappearing even after it had been established that the Himalayan Glacier story was rubbish. This is the same man who runs TERI which receive millions from the EU to study how much the glaciers are melting. He more than anyone should have known the truth and yet it was he who held out longest telling us misinformation!

More recently The Sunday Times has been bullied by the advocates of AGW to retract a story which at its heart was true. How different this reaction is to Richard North who amended his research about Amazongate within 24 hours of writing his original allegations and has continued to update his story as the facts became ever more clear.

This is in the year that emails and data sets were leaked from CRU, emails that showed how the hockey stick team lead by Michael Man (who in one email is exposed as being knowingly dishonest about the number of papers he has written because it make him look more impressive) come across as a group of advocates who are willing to destroy data and emails in an attempt to subvert their critics objection to their “science”.

You cannot expect Nations to change their economies on the basis of a report that is not being updated when new information comes in that contradicts the reports conclusions. You cannot expect anyone to believe you are sincere whilst Pachauri, a man who has seen his institute (TERI) grow from being a minnow worth 500,000 to 40,000,00 in just a few years., is allowed to continue in his position as chairman of the IPCC.

Until the advocates of AGW are willing to cleanse their ranks of their dubious leaders and to be open about their data, and how and why they have changed their data, they cannot be expected to taken seriously by the ordinary people who look out of their windows and see record cold winter snows and cooling ice caps.


Sorry to be boring about this but we should simply go on hammering Pachauri and their inabilty to get rid of the pollution at the centre of their movement. Please everyone add facts about Pachauri's financial empire built of teh back of the scare stories and keep Monbiot swallowing Pachauri aqgain and again and again until the thread is shut down.

_________________
http://twobadmicenews.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Right of reply
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:38 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Julian Williams wrote:
Sorry to be boring about this but we should simply go on hammering Pachauri and their inabilty to get rid of the pollution at the centre of their movement. Please everyone add facts about Pachauri's financial empire built of teh back of the scare stories and keep Monbiot swallowing Pachauri aqgain and again and again until the thread is shut down.


This is not boring ... it is good stuff ... it will help widen out the debate.

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Right of reply
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:48 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:46 am
Posts: 2153
Location: Pembrokeshre
It is the big lie they hate swallowing in public.

_________________
http://twobadmicenews.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Right of reply
PostPosted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:56 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Julian Williams wrote:
It is the big lie they hate swallowing in public.


They simply cannot cope with the fact that the IPCC is wrong. We still have, after all this time, one of the posters bleating about a "referencing error". One almost feels a genuine sympathy for these people, and their inability to cope with reality.

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum lockedPost a reply Page 1 of 8   [ 115 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
610nm Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net