Today's Sunday Rimes runs pseudo-science as if it were real science - their "scientists", however, have links to the Exxon-funded "Heartland Inst." lobby group.
The Sunday Times today run pseudo-science as if it were real science with a story titled:
“World may not be warming, say scientists”
So just who are these ‘scientists’ making the claim at the heart of The Sunday Times’s story?
According to the lobbying transparency organisation SourceWatch, the so-called “Science and Public Policy Institute” (SPPI) – who are named in The Sunday Times as the organisation behind the “research” – are none other than a spin off of the Exxon-funded group “The Frontiers of Freedom”.
The SPPI website shows that they are also linked to the Exxon-funded lobby group, the Heartland Institute. Indeed, the first press release of the SPPI listed a Heartland Institute staffer as its press contact.
The Royal Society has attacked Exxon for its funding of such front groups, which have been described as “the climate denial industry”.
The ‘research paper’ was not ‘peer reviewed,’ which isn’t surprising given that the ‘scientist’ who authored the paper is Anthony Watts, known to the rest of us as one of the world’s leading climate denial bloggers and somebody without any climate science credentials.
The SPPI draws heavily on the papers of Lord Monckton, who the SPPI list among their “personnel”. Viscount Monckton is a UKIP peer who claims to have a Nobel Prize when he doesn’t.
He also claims to have a cure for HIV! Of course he doesn’t. He described the Copenhagen conference as “a sort of Nuremburg rally,” and recently attacked a young Jewish climate campaigner as “Nazi”.
Also today, The Mail on Sunday reports the astonishing claim that “there has been no global warming since 1995”.
In reality, according to both the World Meteorological Society (WMO) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the 2000s were the warmest decade on record.
The Mail’s claim is particularly ironic given that the website of the climate denial lobby group, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, promotes a graph of temperatures beginning in 2001, presumably precisely to conceal the marked warming recorded through the 20th Century and the fact that nine of the ten warmest years occurred this decade.
In related news, it has been reported how a quote held up by sceptics as a ‘smoking gun’, as it was purported to have come from former IPCC and Met Office climate scientist Sir John Houghton, was fabricated.
Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation quoted Houghton as saying “unless we announce disasters no one will listen” – but on the letters page of today’s Observer, Houghton demands a public retraction from Peiser.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation, whilst demanding transparency from the scientific community, refuses to reveal who fund them. As Left Foot Forward has already reported, however, many of their key people have ties to the fossil fuel industry.
61 Responses to “Sunday Times publish pseudo-science as it were fact – their “scientists” have links to big oil”
Oxford Kevin
As I said there is no evidence at all the scientists at CRU fiddled the data.
Here we have the temperature record for the CET. http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/index.html
Looks pretty much to me that during the 351 years of the longest measured series that temperatures during the 2000s were warmer than at any other time. This is purely localized, but demonstrates why we it is possible for a number of vineyards to be successful in Northern England.
As to the global temperature record. Since you condemn those at CRU, and I disagree with your assessment, I’ll choose an alternate instrument temperature record. See the temperature data for GISS.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
This is a global record. Secondly they have had their raw data, their processed data, their code for processing the data, the peer reviewed journal articles which describe the methodology for processing the data publicly available for sometime. McKintyre found a small error in the numerical calculations for the processing of some of the records in the US, this made little difference to the US data and statistically its impact on the global temperature record was nil (ie so far within the error range that it means nothing).
Note how this temperature series shows 2005 as the warmest year with 2007, 2009, 1998 as the next warmest years in order but 2007, 2009 and 1998 are so close they are also numerically tied. please note 2005 is shown as the warmest year.
If as you say you have evidence for all your claims, please show the evidence for the number of vineyards during medieval times, and now in the uk, and their location in the uk, if you also have the evidence for vineyards during Roman times that would be nice to see as well. Then perhaps we can make a judgement.
We may as well keep to the theme of leftfootforward of being an evidence based blog.
Kevin
Anon E Mouse
Kevin – The code they used in their climate model was commented (It was the source) I have posted links directly previously on this blog where I was immediately condemned by some guy called Rupert Read – his attitude stopped me voting Green locally. I don’t think he has any formal education in science but seemed keen to attack me for showing the data.
On the climate temperatures I have a file on my lappy at home with the data from the ice cores that shows concentration of CO2 at certain times – I’ll dig that up when I get a chance – really time poor this week.
Regarding vineyards are you suggesting it wasn’t warm enough at that time to grow grapes?
As for being evidence based this is a blog where they claim that Spain is in the G20 so don’t pay too much heed to the title.
Oxford Kevin
The code I refer to is not the climate modelling code. It is the code for making adjustments to the temperature data based on the methodology described in the published peer reviewed paper.
In relation to vineyards I’m not saying anything of the sort. You said that Northern Europe was far warmer during medieval times than it is now. If you are basing your statement on the growing of grapes, then I thought a comparison of the number and location of vineyards now and then in the uk would be a good evidence based way to see if your statement held up. Since you say that you always have a basis for anything you say, I assume that means you have the evidence handy for the number of vineyards grown then and now to be in a position to claim it was much warmer in medieval europe than now. That is quite a big claim so requires strong evidence.
What did you think of the graphs of temperature by the way.
Oxford Kevin
Apologies Mr Mouse, you said it was far hotter and I misquoted you as saying it was far warmer. I think though that it reinforces my statement that you have made a big claim. So I am waiting for the evidence from you to provide the basis for your claim.
Facing the heat: Daily Mail and Sunday Times climate journalism | Left Foot Forward
[…] recently, following Left Foot Forward’s blog by Joss Garman revealing the “pseudo-science” with links to Big Oil behind a Sunday […]