Fernsehbeitrag im ZDF: Das Klimakartell
Die Medienaktivität ist unverändert intensiv, aber es mehren sich die nachdenklichen Kommentare.
Sonntag, 13. Dezember 2009,13:15
Der Filmbeitrag
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Wow. Rahmstorf admits that something is not quite right.
Yeah, this looks different to Stephen Schneider's reaction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded
And, in case someone missed this:
Andrew Watson on BBC Newsnight (unfortunately,the whole clip is no longer available on the BBC website so you only get the 'juicy' end):
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/prof-watson-calls-morano-an-asshole-on-newsnight/
@Reiner
do you really defend Marc Morano, one of the most disgusting PR player in the climate politics? Andrew Watson is totally politically incorrect but totally correct in the fact. Morano is an Asshole, a giant one. Get real.
@Prof von Storch
the video is nice... but Prof Rahmstorf is right: the facts do not change. What do you propose to improve the IPCC process? I mean, you said: some people tried to exclude works from the IPCC report, but in several documented cases they did not succeed. Thus, the process, at least, in the scientific part is not that bad, I assume.
Secondly, what do you think how to handle really bad works in a report like the IPCC? You cannot say they are equivalently relevant to the discussion, can you? But I agree, one should include also these works.
Do you have any suggestions?
@ anon:
why do you assume I would defend Morano?
What do you think name calling will be good for?
The problem is not Andrew Watson's political uncorrectness but his inadequate response. He was not prepared for this confrontation. Rolling eyes and insults are just not good enough. Morano, of course, had a field day which was to be expected.
I posted this link as contrast to Rahmsdorf;s more measured and attentive reply. Bob Watson was handling the affair on British TV during the first days after the scandal broke in a professional way, too.
I also posted the link to Prof Schneider as another, extreme example, where you can see the suppression of discussion.
Just in case you missed the point.
arrgh, I wrote a long post, and lost it. Stupid user ;)
So, in short:
I did really miss the point. I have to apologize. I am sorry. (for some other posts, too, I think, you will know which)
I agree with you in many points. I watched the discussion with Bob Watson and Prof Singer. Bob Watson was great, I think: open, informative, interested into the points of Singer, calm and not defensive at all. I am defensive as you could see.
PS: but the Eschenbach thing, you have to explain. Did you really believe, there could have been a "smoking gun"?
Eschenbach sees a jump in the record at one station which probably has to do with calibration problems. Such jumps seem to happen (without fraud being involved) and they should be discussed in the scientific community.
I have examined the issue of inconsistent datasets for the ozone case in chapter 3 of my book Transnational Environmental Policy if you are interested. There were many such discussions and controversies before scientists came to accept specific datasets (and the procedures to construct them) as reliable.
In order to regain trust and forestall endless picking in temp. records the scientists would be well advised to discuss inconsistencies in the records openly.
@Reiner
Actually, I have been following the blog discussions for some years. It is always the same. Types like Eschenbach claim big things and do not deliver anything. You know, the scientists of CRU, NOAA, in Japan, or in this case the BOM in Australia do know the problems. The problems are discussed openly. "Klimareferencestationen" (in Germany) are used now etc. etc. Darwin Airport is such a station.
There are great papers about adjustments, why they applied these adjustments, what causes these adjustments, about uncertainties. etc.etc. It is not simple to obtain consistent climate data. There are errors. But there are no "smoking guns". Eschenbach did not read anything about this. Nothing. He just claimed a "smoking gun" and was totally wrong, again.
And the worst thing is: Watts or Eschenbach or McIntyre claimed this so often and they almost never delivered. Where is the McIntyre-Temperature-Series? The Watts-Temp? Maybe you heard about that Watts "analyzed" the US stations, what was the result? See it here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
Another irony is the following. The most unreliable temperature series have been the satellite data of UAH and RSS. But all "skeptics" love Dr. Spencers data.
Now, there are even still claims about fraud in the GISTEMP. In this case: think a bit about this: the raw data is freely available, the documentation is freely available in publications, and the source code is free and open, and a free reimplementation project exists. Can it be more open? But still: fraud. No, these people are not rational.
Therefore, I am so skeptic about these people.
I am quite interested in your Montreal book. I already looked into it a bit. I read the chapter backlash. Quite interesting, so many parallels to the current debate.
Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)