"SECRET 28 'scientific experts' who Greened the BBC"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf /
"A list of attendees at a climate-change seminar the BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds trying to keep secret has been unearthed on an internet archive. The listed names emerged after the publicly-funded broadcaster fought off requests for the list under freedom of information (FOI) laws."
"Normally such a talking-shop would have no great significance. The 2006 seminar, however, subsequently became very important indeed. The following year a thoughtful BBC Trust report on impartiality cited the discussion there and said it had settled the argument - as far as the BBC was concerned - on climate change.
Filmmaker John Bridcut wrote:
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [our emphasis] and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].
The BBC is under a statutory obligation to remain impartial, so this gave the "brainstorm" a historic significance: the BBC has not previously abandoned impartiality in peacetime."
More detail at the reference given.
--
Terry Fields

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/01/13 17:11, Terry Fields wrote:

old news, and the 'scientists' in question were outed several months ago* and turned out to be mostly lobbyists and members of eco-organisations.
"It confirms the accuracy of Harrabin's description of the composition of the invitees, with most coming from industry, think tanks and NGOs. And as suspected, climate campaigners Greenpeace are present, while actual scientific experts are thin on the ground: not one attendee deals with attribution science, the physics of global warming. These are scarcely "some of the best scientific experts", whose input could justify a historic abandonment of the BBC's famous impartiality."
(from your link)
And if you want to read it, here it is
http://omnologos.com/full-list-of-participants-to-the-bbc-cmep-seminar-on-26-january-2006 /
* by the simple expedient of looking for the lists of invitees that was published online somewhere outside the BBC.
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, this is a hard one to call, does the bbc give equal time to those who say the earth is flat? Its all a question of where the line is drawn. There is a similar issue over evolution and intelligent design of course. The problem with climate change is that we have records from geological time that the earth has survived being hotter and colder in the past but we were not around with enough tech to tell tales.
The best that can be said is that we are most certainly not helping. However the earth is still coming out of the last ice age and nobody really knows what the end result will be.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 04:07:53 -0000, Brian Gaff wrote:

<SNIP>
This crossed my mind, Brian. If a point of view is is that of a small(ish) minority or is known to be wrong (astrology, flat earth, religion) why give space to such. In the case of climate change, there is a lot of evidence but, AFAIK, no actual hard proof yet. We know only that anthropogenic warming is at least adding to what might be a natural phenomenon.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:18:48 +0000, PeterC wrote:

*If* there's such a thing as "anthropogenic warming". Anyway, humans are a product of the planet - we're as natural as you get.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16/01/13 09:18, PeterC wrote:

It has been said that the deserts of Mesopotamia and the middle east are the result of 10,000 years of organic farming.
Should the BBC decide unilaterally that organic farming methods are destroying the planet?
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
... correctly this time (I believe and hope). See below ...
This post is in response to the following typical denialist post from Terry Fields, who claims to have senior scientific training. Whatever the truth about that, personally I have never seen the slightest evidence of it in his posts, he certainly does not have the open-minded, questioning approach required. He'd better be ready to bleed, because he's about to have a haemorrhage ...
On 15 Jan 2013 17:11:31 GMT, Terry Fields

I mung the URL, because I don't want to give search engines another reason to rank this outrageously lazy and shoddy piece of 'journoism' any higher than it already is. Also I'm snipping TF's quotes from it, which are included below anyway, and choosing my own more extensive ones.

Note the inflammatory denialist headline. Particularly inappropriate given what follows ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2007/impartiality.html

Note that Bridcut gives no details or time and date of said seminar. Note too that this was VERY selective quote. The full quote actually goes:
"Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority. Jana Bennett, Director of Television, argued at the seminar that ‘as journalists, we have the duty to understand where the weight of the evidence has got to. And that is an incredibly important thing in terms of public understanding – equipping citizens, informing the public as to what’s going to happen or not happen possibly over the next couple of hundred years.’ Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, said that in his former job as head of TV News, he had been lobbied by scientists ‘about what they thought was a disproportionate number of people denying climate change getting on our airwaves and being part of a balanced discussion – because they believe, absolutely sincerely, that climate change is now scientific fact.' The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution. It remains important that programme-makers relish the full range of debate that such a central and absorbing subject offers, scientifically, politically and ethically, and avoid being misrepresented as standard-bearers. The wagon wheel remains a model shape. But the trundle of the bandwagon is not a model sound."
I was struck by the selective quoting, the totally different slant of the original report, and my suspicions were aroused. They were aroused still further noting in the above that a second seminar was mentioned, which, on reading the report in its entirety, turned out to be about impartiality, and had preceded the writing of the report. This gave me the idea that the much maligned seminar of 26 January 2006 was perhaps not even the same one that the BBC had actually used as a basis for its future reporting of Climate Change.

If you read the document on impartiality linked above, the BBC has not abandoned impartiality. I would strongly recommend everyone here who has criticised the BBC, particularly for lack of impartiality, that they SHOULD READ IT IN ITS ENTIRETY, as a duty to themselves, but perhaps more importantly to the readers of their posts.

I examined the entire record of Wayback Machine for the IBT site from the beginning of 2006 to the present day, every 'dump' for 2006, 2007, and 2008, one at random for every year since.
The first point is that the list of attendees was nowhere to be seen, so unless somehow, despite such a thorough search, I managed to miss it, the list given in the article and in other blogs did not come from there, raising the question as to how it was obtained, and whether this procurement was legal. In a section I've cut for brevity the blog slams the BBC for spending taxpayers' money in defending FOI requests for data that was freely available. My investigations suggest that it wasn't. However, that is a side issue, which is why I've cut it.
Rather more usefully, I did find a description of the seminar of 26 January 2006 which first appeared in a document dated 23/06/2008 entitled "REAL WORLD BRAINSTORMS" from a dump taken on 24/07/2008, and lasted through several later dumps. This is the entire quote covering that seminar:
http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://www.ibt.org.uk/all_documents/dialogue/ Real%20World%20Brainstorm%20update%2030Jul08.pdf?PHPSESSID0a3ed48b567c7ba75820b6b1951844
"2006 A one day event was held in London on January 26 2006, focusing on climate change and its impact on development. The brainstorm brought together 28 BBC executives and independent producers, this time including several from BBC News, and 28 policy experts. It was chaired by Fergal Keane and looked ahead to the next 10 years, to explore the challenges facing television in covering this issue. Several delegates attended from developing countries, including Ethiopia, China and Bangladesh."
As you can see, apart from the fact that it happens also to be about Climate Change, it's description doesn't fit anything otherwise claimed by either the BBC quote or the climate denialists. Thoroughly suspicious now, I began to ask myself how to discover to which seminar the BBC quote actually referred, was it the one claimed, which now seemed highly unlikely, or to a totally different one?
I reasoned that the BBC are not usually slow to report on their own activities, so they probably reported on this allegedly 'secret' seminar at the time, and so it proved. I merely searched for ...
    site:www.bbc.co.uk bbc coverage of climate change 2006
... and on the second page of hits, I found these from July 2006:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5150816.stm
"Climate change 'real and severe'
An expert panel convened by BBC News has concluded that climate change is "real and dangerous".
Temperatures are likely to rise by 3C to 5C by the end of the century, with impacts probably "severe" but perhaps not "catastrophic", the panel said.
...
For perspectives on these issues, BBC environment affairs analyst Roger Harrabin brought together a panel of seven eminent academics with expertise including climate modelling, the Antarctic, and social aspects of environment policy."
You can still listen to the resulting R4 programme ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/science/lovelock_climate_20060706.shtml
... and read the conclusions of the expert panel ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5152590.stm
The panel contained: * (Chairman) Prof Brian Hoskins, Royal Society Research Professor, Reading University * Prof Chris Rapley, Director, British Antarctic Survey * Lord Oxburgh, University Scientist, former chairman of Shell * Dr Vicky Pope, Head of the Climate Prediction Programme, Hadley Centre * Prof Hans von Storch, Director, Institute for Coastal Research, Geesthacht, Germany * Prof Susan Owens, Professor of Environment and Policy, Cambridge University * Prof Andrew Watson, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
... and also present as agent provocateur at the discussion, which was largely triggered by his then recent and controversial book ...
Professor James Lovelock, author of 'The Revenge of Gaia.'
Further extensive searches revealed no mention of any other seminars in the requisite period between January and September 2006 that fitted the description in the BBC Impartiality report. The above seminar, a different one to that claimed by denialist bloggers, is the relevant one.
So there you have it. It seems that some denialist found the earlier seminar first, assumed without making any further checks that it must be the one, and the blogging excrement in excrement out multiplication factory took over from there.
ASSUMED - please be sure that you note that word, because in all my searches I haven't seen a single shred of EVIDENCE that the January seminar they picked on was actually the one in question, and this July one is also in the right timeframe and fits the BBC's own description much better. So why didn't they find it, when it was there, in the clear, in the BBC's own archives for all to find and see and hear? Why did it take an independent person to find it? Because, as the BBC's own thoughtful and thought-provoking report on its own impartiality, linked above, makes clear, impartiality needs certain qualities (percentages figures are those in a poll rating the important of each quality):
Stay open-minded, not making assumptions about people or events 86% Stay neutral, not giving own view, however difficult that is 80% Let us hear different people giving their own stories in their own words 80% Give us a considered analysis of events taking place 77% Stand back and ask critical and rigorous questions of others 71%
Maintain a certain distance – not getting too close to the issue reported on 65% By contrast, in blogging land, anything goes - there is no need to be impartial, to check basic facts, or to apologise for error. Laziness, a lack of determination to get to the real truth, credulous paranoia, and anti-institutional bigotry are all too commonly the norm.
Shit's always ugly, isn't it?
Thank heavens for the impartiality of the Beeb.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Java Jive wrote:

I am reasonably certain I wrote none of it.

Nothing like an open mind, is there?
This is from the man who, having chosen the data, then uses it to produce a calculation that 'proves' his argument is right (uranium from seawater) while ignoring advances in technology, now 7 times more effective, that anyway undermines his position.
That...isn't scientific. It's more like a religion.
Rest snipped.

Did they, or did they not, line up six expensive lawyers and spend £shedloads getting the FOI request refused?
--
Terry Fields


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16 Sep 2013 22:25:53 GMT, Terry Fields

Did you, or did you not, link to this page without any question as to the story's authenticity and correctness? I and doubtless others will note that you cannot have made any worthwhile checks as to its accuracy at all.

If you are claiming that your mind is more open than mine, why didn't you find the fundamental and reasonably obvious errors in the article for yourself?

Answered more appropriately elsewhere.

I think we can all understand why.

Of course they did. If you received an FOI request requesting data from someone whom you suspect might be about to use it to criticise you in an impartial fashion, would you willingly give that person the data? It's probably simpler and cheaper to fight the FOI than to sue for libel afterwards. You also have to think about the implications for others who attended the meeting, some of whom were from countries with less than open and democratic government. What will be the effect for these people if their government later reads a totally misrepresentative account of the meeting, with their name listed as an attendee?
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Java Jive wrote:

Perhaps I should have paid for a team of expensive lawyers to take on the BBC's expensive lawyers in a court battle?
Get real.

Partky because I am spending too much time finding the fundamental and reasonably obvious errors in your postings.

So, you don't know how the FOI system works. Why am I not surprised?
What a stupid argument.
--
Terry Fields


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17 Sep 2013 16:05:14 GMT, Terry Fields

If I could discover the truth without any expense other than that of time, so could you. The significant and important point is that you didn't bother. Despite your claims of academic seniority, you failed to apply any critical faculty. You were garbage in garbage out, just like the original blog.

I would be delighted to think I was taking up so much of your time, it would mean that I was having some effect in reducing the flow of unattributed denialist rubbish from you. Unfortunately however, I know that claim to be utter bollocks, because I can prove it. You posted the original link on 15/01/2013, and it so happens that I didn't make a single post between the 14th and 17th.
And if my errors are so fundamental and reasonably obvious, how come you're taking so much time to find them? Are you admitting to be brain-challenged or something?

I do, having made some FOI requests from Ofcom myself.

Which means that you can't find anything more substantial to say against it.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't think I've ever seen a more perverse argument for suppressing information.
--
bert

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I would agree it's not an ideal situation. However, you have to remember that it takes two to tango, and, as my OP has comprehensively shown, blog land is not going to win any prizes on Strictly ...

--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 4:47:14 AM UTC+12, Java Jive quoted:

Well there's the problem right there. Almost nobody is "denying climate cha nge". I don't know anyone who denies climate change. Let's ignore anybody who doe s.
I am aware of tens of thousands of people with science degrees who say that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon d ioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the fore seeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and di sruption of the Earth's climate."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

FX: Waves.
--
Today is Setting Orange, the 41st day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3179
“A preoccupation with the next world clearly shows an inability to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Link?
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:54:48 -0700 (PDT), Matty F

--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 10:54:15 AM UTC+12, Java Jive wrote:

Surely you have heard of the petition project? http://www.petitionproject.org/
There are also lists of sceptic scientists elsewhere.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:04:04 -0700 (PDT), Matty F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
A front organisation purporting to be scientific, but ...
The 'scientists' give their disciplines as follows: * Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences: 3,697 * Computer and mathematical sciences: 903 * Physics and aerospace sciences: 5,691 * Chemistry: 4,796 * Biology and agriculture: 2,924 * Medicine: 3,069 * Engineering and general science: 9,992
So the appropriate science genre comes a fairly late 4th with only 12% of the signatories. Worse still ...
"George Woodwell and John Holdren, two members of the National Academy of Sciences, responded to Jacoby in the International Herald Tribune, describing the petition as a "farce" in part because "the signatories are listed without titles or affiliations that would permit an assessment of their credentials."[19] Myanna Lahsen said, "Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few." The problem is made worse, Lahsen notes, because critics "added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved".[20] Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[21] the movie Star Wars,[20] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[22] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake".[21] A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided."[23] According to the Petition Project website, the issue of duplication has been resolved.[24] Kevin Grandia offered similar criticism, saying although the Petition Project website provides a breakdown of "areas of expertise", it fails to assort the 0.5% of signatories who claim to have a background in Climatology and Atmospheric Science by name, making independent verification difficult. "This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant".
In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."
Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community"
To continue, the site has this paragraph on a page titled and reached by clicking a button labelled:
"Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research"
"The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy."
So not so scientific after all then. Moving on to the 'report' ...
The PDF is dated 2007, so it's already 6 years out of date, and was published in "The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons."
WTF do American physicians and surgeons know about climate science? One can guess that it's nothing, but it's still very revealing to read this:
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM
"it was mailed from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in Cave Junction, Oregon. Now it so happens I know where Cave Junction is. It's a wide spot in the road, so called because there's a turnoff for Oregon Caves National Monument. Cave Junction is not a major population center, much less the site of a university or major research labs.
...
So why publish a paper on climate change in a medical journal? And just what is the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons? A look at the contents from the last few issues is revealing:
* The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors * Government Price Fixing in Medicine: the Demanding Entitled Patient * Is Physician Income Too High, or Too Low? [take a wild guess] * Editorial: Conflicts of Interest and Quality Care * Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk: A Critical Analysis of the Report of the Harvard Nurses Study II * Common Sense, 231 Years Later * American Physicians and Meiji-Era Samurais: Is History Repeating Itself? * The Coase Theorem: the Greatest Economic Insight of the 20 Century * Has The Time for Nonparticipation Come? * The Optometric-Ophthalmic Kickback Scheme: the Demise of American Eye Medicine * Book Reviews: o The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care o Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder [to be fair, the review is critical of the state of conservative scholarship] o The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science [Generally favorable review] o Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine's Greatest Lifesaver o The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors o The Business of Health: the Role of Competition, Markets, and Regulation o Envy: a Theory of Social Behavior o Pain in America—and How Our Government Makes It Worse! o America Alone: the End of the World as We Know It o The Professors–The 101 Most Dangerous Academics In America o Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years o The Trouble With Medical Journals o Minutemen – The Battle To Secure America’s Border o Overdose: How Excessive Government Regulation Stifles Pharmaceutical Innovation o The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History o The Real Lincoln - A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War o One Nation Under Therapy - How the Helping Culture Is Eroding Self-Reliance o Life at the Bottom - The Worldview That Makes the Underclass
A scan of the journal's contents shows very little real science. It may well be that the two papers on climate change are the most scientific papers the journal has ever published. There are a lot of articles critical of medical peer review and government regulation. And there are a host of tangential articles and book reviews favorable to far right and libertarian ideology. I could see a medical journal publishing a review of an extreme book like The Bell Curve that was widely publicized and had a bearing on medicine, but what serious medical journal would ever have a reason to review books on privatization of roads, the Minutemen, the 101 most dangerous academics (I was excluded both from this and People's list of sexiest men. O the injustice!), or a hostile revisionist work on Lincoln?"
And there's plenty more there, including a full scientific critique of the anti-AGW claims of the Oregon Petition 'report'.
To continue, one of the editors of the Oregon Petition 'report' is Willie Soon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
"Soon and Baliunas controversy
The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication of a paper written by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research,[1] which prompted concerns about the peer review process of the paper and resulted in the resignation of several other editors and the eventual repudiation of the paper by the publisher.
...
Both were astrophysicists at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: Soon had for a long time said that climate change was primarily due to solar variation, while Baliunas had previously been noted for disputing that man-made chemicals (halocarbon refrigerants such as CFCs) were causing ozone depletion
...
Questions have also been raised about funding for the paper. Soon and Baliunas "was in part underwritten by $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, the voice of the oil industry".
And so on. Astrophysics? Why would the American Petroleum Institute fund an astrophysicist in the course of his/her normal astrophysical research? I think we can work out what's in it for the API.
Moving on to the contents of the PDF itself, the critique already linked above is sufficiently detailed that I needn't do much further work myself, merely pull one claim to pieces as an example.
So I will briefly note in passing that the first paragraph of the summary reveals its overt political purpose. Still, at least it is overt rather than covert.
The first piece of evidence considered is covered in paragraph 3 and figure 1, reference 3. The original data and the analysis are here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/keigwin1996/ http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/keigwin_sargasso.pdf
The research document is dated 2007, entitled "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea" and describes research by Lloyd D. Keigwin, Science, New Series, Vol. 274, No. 5292. (Nov. 29, 1996), pp. 1504-1508, stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici 36-8075%2819961129%293%3A274%3A5292%3C1504%3ATLIAAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9
We shall see that the original research appears to be entirely valid, but the anti-AGW slant of its results claimed by the Oregan Petition paper is not.
From the text of the PDF summary:
p 1506 (printed) 4 (pdf):
"In the last half of the record there was a 1.5°C oscillation from a minimum SST 1500 to 1700 years ago to a maximum 900 to 1000 years ago, to a minimum 300 to 400 years ago. Since the Little Ice Age, SSTs in the northern Sargasso Sea increased by ~1°C. Actual SST changes may have been even greater than indicated in Fig. 4B, in that the sediment may have been mixed differentially by burrowing (~5 cm) as sedimentation rates changed, and because stacking the delta18O data may have attenuated the signal. From the raw delta18O data of BC-004D (Fig. 4A), calculated SST 350 years ago was 21.5°C, about 1.5° C colder than the modern annual average."
In subsequent paragraphs, given the variability found, the paper goes on with some justification to caution about drawing exaggerated conclusions supporting AGW from absolute temperature ranges and actual numerical values alone.
However, we know from such data as ice cores that surface temperatures have always varied, so those on their own tell us little. To work out whether human are actually doing anything to the climate we need to look at RATES of change, here rates of temperature change, and this paper has nothing to say overtly on this. However putting the above descriptions into rates of change, we find that the results are entirely consistent with my ball-park figures from the Vostok data:
1.5 / (1600 - 950)    = 0.0023 deg C / yr (>= occurs in 47% of Vostok samples) 1.5 / 350            = 0.0043 deg C / yr (>= occurs in 28% of Vostok samples)
Yet the rates of change of recent years as calculated from BEST's results only occur in 18% (1.5 deg C over last 259 years) and 3% (0.9 deg C over last 50 or 60 years - different text sources are slightly ambiguous, so latter was chosen for calculation purposes, if former had been chosen, would have been 2%).
So this research paper appears to be entirely consistent with other strands of research and doesn't say anything against AGW in the manner claimed in the Oregon Petition text.
Critique of the rest is left as an exercise for the reader.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I began reading this without knowing whose side you were on or rather what point you were making. Then I
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 19/09/13 04:47, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Exactly.
Story of my life, that is..
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.